By Joel Escol • www.socialmediawatch.net

December 16, 2008

Fark is a news aggregator and now one of the sought after social networking news sites in the worldwide web. News sources such as CNN, BBC News, Fox, Reuters, MSNBC, AP Wire, Bloomberg and all other online media news sources are trooping to this site to submit their daily and weekly news updates.

What is interesting about Fark is that if you are a confirmed user you are allowed to post your links as well as to comment on daily news submitted by other news sources. The only thing a user should remember is that any submitted link to Fark is still subject to administrator’s approval.

Fark, according to its founder is not a weblog but clearly a news aggregator and an edited social networking site. What you can see in its homepages are only brief content of the submitted news. However, when you also click the news source’s logo you will be directed to the domain where the news has originated. Even when your information at Fark is not the whole story of the news but through clicking the logo at the left side of the brief content, you will be directed in minutes to the news main domain.

Everyday Fark is receiving more than 2,000 news submissions from which would basically update the site’s loyal subscribers of what’s been going on in the world today. According to its founder, Fark has no meaning at all. It’s not even an acronym. The only idea there is to make Fark known as a news aggregator. The founder want that in the future when people think of Fark they would also think it’s all about news updates in the many communities of the world.

If you would love to monitor the news of the world you can better have the grasp of all these news through Fark. I call it “One-Stop-Shop” at Fark. Would you agree? It would be time consuming to visit these news sources one by one. I’d rather have Fark to save more time.

I’m getting increasingly addicted to The Daily Beast. I actually can’t remember when was the last time a website made me so very gratified. Ooh they got it so right they’ve created such a refreshing, innovative and compelling experience.

If you didn’t stumble upon it yet, it’s the new baby of Tina Brown. Only way to describe it is as news editor, aggregator, creator, synthesizer and remixer. The editors team describe it as “the omnivorous friend who hears about the best stuff and forwards it to you with a twist”.

It has truly delightful user interface.

I can’t remember where I read a designer uttering words of wisdom along the lines of ‘get rid of your concept of primarily designing ‘pages’ as building blocks and start designing experiences’ and this is exactly what they did in the Daily Beast.

It is built from modules of experiences with quirky titles like Big Fat Story, for example, a simple flow-chart like presentation of a big topical story, where each box is an article taken from a different source around the world/web (The Guardian, NYT, Reuters, Bloomberg) each brings a different angle of the story creating bigger picture, within deeper and richer context in the most non-intimidating way possible (hover on for a sneak preview tooltip or click the link to go to the original source). Cutting straight through the clutter that is abundance, The Daily Beast is providing you more content yet with a far lighter feeling than any other news website.

Or the Cheat sheet, a collection of 10 must read stories/articles from around the world. Intriguing sometimes abstract adjectives, like prickly, connected, same sex or caught red handed titled the stories. I particularly like the Extra Insight offered whenever the editors found additional link that adds depth to the story. User participation/contribution is enabled by thumbs up/down voting whether this article is Cheat Sheet worthy as well as by inviting readers to suggest a better link. Comments are open on all original stories.

Also great are the Video Cheat Sheet and the Buzz Board with their super-clever navigation. And to complement this fantastic curation of the news, there are the excellent resident blogs – a roster of top notch writers including the chief editor Tina Brown, contributing their wisdom and wit to the mix. Finally, but that probably won’t last for so long, for now, TDB is advertising free.

There is a chance the Daily Beast will soon replace my 8 years long homepage.

I was happy to find them on Twitter, (for they finding me on Twitter, actually). At the moment they just promote their own links and I’m hoping they will be able to innovate on this platform as well. I can find your links on my own, thanks very much – think how we can further build relationships and in what ways you can add value on/through Twitter.

Share This

Go to Source

I doubt that anyone (aside from maybe Sue Decker, the Yahoo President who announced her resignation in the official announcement of the new CEO) envies Yahoo’s new CEO, Carol Bartz. It’s going to take more than just business acumen to turn around the company’s failing fortunes—but does Bartz have what it takes?

Popular opinion is divided so far. Henry Blodget is pretty excited about her take-charge attitude and her track record of turning a failing company around.

The more we learn about Carol, the less she seems like the safe choice and the more she seems like the smart choice. We LOVED her attitude on yesterday’s short introductory conference call:

In Yahoo’s conference call this afternoon, she lectured everyone sternly to give Yahoo some “friggin’ breathing room” and also noted that the company “frankly, could use a little management.” (Swisher)

You go, girl.

John Paczkowski of All Things Digital calls Bartz “The ALL CAPS CEO” (as opposed to Jerry Yang, the “ceo”), but notes that some feel she doesn’t have enough experience with consumers or advertising.

Reuters says she lacks Web and deal-making experience.

Bartz, however, does not have an established reputation as a deal-maker and Yahoo investors regarded her appointment skeptically, with shares of the Internet search and advertising company dropping more than 3 percent during the trading day. . .

She is credited with increasing Autodesk’s revenue from $285 million to $1.5 billion during her 14-year tenure, as well as diversifying its business. Bartz, 60, built the company by buying small and medium-sized businesses, including a $444 million buyout of Discreet Logic in 1999.

“She seems to me to be more of a builder than a buyer-and-flipper,” Davis said. “I’m sure that plenty of people wanted to buy Autodesk over the years.”

Analysts lauded her for being a dextrous, capable and committed executive, but said that without any experience in the Internet sector, she would likely find it daunting to turn around Yahoo, which is a distant second to Google Inc in the search advertising market.

Reuters appears to look at her appointment as a sign that Yahoo will not be selling to Microsoft, instead opting to try to turn the company around on its own (and there seems to be some implication that this is a bad thing).

Now, none of us can predict the future, but from what we know about Carol Bartz, what do you think the new CEO means for Yahoo’s future?

Pilgrim’s Partners: Is a blogger attacking your company without you knowing? Monitor your online reputation with Andy Beal’s Trackur–try it for free!

It’s been a year of rumors and intrigue for Verizon. Okay, maybe it’s not quite that dramatic, but there has been a little sturm-und-drang surrounding the soon-to-be-largest-in-the-US mobile carrier’s next mobile search deal. MSFT CEO Steve Ballmer is going to be announcing this tonight during his CES keynote, according to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg—Verizon has chosen Microsoft to provide its mobile search.

Over the last few months, there have been rumors that Google or Microsoft would be the pick, but not so much for Yahoo. As one analyst told Reuters:

“It’s certainly a feather in Microsoft’s cap. Tough news for Google and tougher news for Yahoo,” CCS Insight analyst John Jackson said of the agreement.

Verizon will pass AT&T to become the largest mobile network this week when their acquisition of Alltel closes. However the soon-to-be-number-one network decided not to go with either of the two most popular search engines in its mobile partnership.

In November, when the rumors about a deal with Microsoft surfaced, the reports indicated that the deal would involve revenue sharing for the two companies, with Verizon receiving a minimum payment:

Verizon would also be guaranteed payments of about $550 million to $650 million over five years—about twice what rival Google offered. In addition, Verizon could agree to use Microsoft’s mobile operating system in more of its phones, generating additional payments.

At the time, it also seemed likely that Google would make a higher and/or different bid to try to block the deal with Microsoft, as they apparently did with MSFT’s offer for Yahoo almost a year ago. (Please don’t tell me you’ve forgotten.)

However, Google proved to be ultimately unwilling to follow through with the legal hassles their Yahoo deal created and that deal failed in the end, as well. Maybe they did make a counter offer, or maybe they just wouldn’t raise their price, hoping that the superior relevance (or perceived relevance) of their results would be enough to swing a deal in their favor without the extra cash.

What do you think—is the deal better for Microsoft because they’re getting the deal, or because Google isn’t? Or perhaps none of the above?

By Carrie Hill

In a somewhat confusing set of events Google has been awarded the use of their country-specific brand, Gu Ge, by Chinese courts.  Bejing GuGe Science & Technology Corp was ordered to pay Google 100,000 yuan or about $14,624 in the suit and to relinquish the brand to Google.

According to a Reuters report from 2007, Bejing GuGe initially filed suit against Google for alleged trademark infringement.  It’s unclear when the turnaround came and Google filed the countersuit against Bejing GuGe. 

Articles I found offered conflicting information. It seems the trademark timeline in question was pretty rocky.  One source indicates Google filed their initial trademark paperwork in January of ‘06 while Bejing GuGe filed for their trademark in March 2006.  Another article indicates Google filed for the trademark in November of 2006. 

Luckily it was up to the Chinese courts (and not me) to sort this all out—awarding Google the right to be Gu Ge in China. 

via Search Engine Land

Carrie Hill is the SEO Team leader for Blizzard Internet Marketing where she specializes in optimizing travel, tourism and accommodations websites.

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!