I've noticed that embedding a comment form into a blog encourages readers to post comments, as opposed to providing them with a link to a comment form.

Blogger had historically provided a link to a blog comment form hosted on their server. But a few months ago they added the option to embed a comment form on your blog.

So I gave it a try on my beef jerky blog.

I found that this blog is now fetching about 1 comment per day, as opposed to 1 comment per week using the link.

So it seems people are more likely to comment if you reduce the number of required clicks.

While perusing through Facebook this evening, I spied this advertisement on the side of the page (see right...)

"Meet Real Mature Singles", and it shows a cute looking gal, with a nice set of boobs, standing next to a fully erect cactus.

I know that Facebook doesn't just show any ad to any given user. It looks at the profile data of a user and matches it up to its database of ads, and shows those ads that it thinks are most likely to get clicks.

Considering that Facebook already knows that I'm married, how did it figure that this ad will likely get a click from me?

I'm sure that Facebook has its own performance metrics.

Maybe its metrics say that ads for "real singles" still get lots of clicks from married folks. Or maybe their metrics say that guys who ride motorcycles are always on the look out for a fender bunny. Or maybe their metrics says that guys who live in a desert environment such as Southern California are interested in cacti.

Whatever the case is, I'm sure Facebook knows which ads tend to clicked on by which users. I guess it's interesting that married guys are clicking ads for singles.

And for the record, no I didn't the click the ad.  ✓

That's the question one blogger asked on Facebook, to which he got several responses. But most of the responses were rather lame in my opinion.

Here's a recap of the responses...

1. One respondent referred to him to two other blogs for tips.

2. One respondent recommended using Stumbleupon.

3. One respondent said to use a Feedburner RSS Feed.

4. A few respondents said to post comments on other people's blogs, using your blog address in the signature.

5. One respondent said to use Digg.

6. Another said to use LinkedIn and Twitter.

7. A few people said to visit their own blogs for help.

8. One guy said to post a lot of photos on your blog.

9. There were several others who offered up a menu of tricks and tips.

However, of all the people who responded, I only saw one person who got it right. He said, "Regular posting".

Just ask yourself what causes you to read someone else's blog every day? It's because that person writes something new every day. They also write in an intelligent manner, and say stuff that you actually find useful, thoughtful, or lights up your brain.

Google keeps track of blogs that are frequently updated, and will give your blog an extra boost if you can write new stuff everyday.

Google can also analyze the article titles to see if they were machine generated, and will bury them as spam blogs. So keep each article title completely different from the others, and just write new stuff everyday.  ✓

Mediapost published a summary about some interesting statistics on Internet usage. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that people now rely on the Internet for news versus newspapers.

And more interesting is that younger people, ages 18-29, get their news from the Internet more than television.

The report goes on to say that it's not just this decline in readership that's causing newspapers to lose money, but Craigslist has taken much of their business away in classified ads.

Read the article here...
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.san&art_aid=98130

Opinion

Obviously, a lot of the local news you read online still comes from newspapers, most of those publishers collect syndication fees. Newspapers can still survive syndicating content to web portals.

But if you're a small Internet publisher, your way to respond is to put some effort behind a niche market or two, and really focus on it. The web portals like Yahoo, MSN, AOL, can't really compete in offering hyperlocal content, or very narrow verticals.

I just now helped a friend of mine launch a blog on Temecula wines; there doesn't seem to be any publication, print or online, that writes about this subject on a daily basis, or provides information at a highly detailed level.

It's the highly detailed information that enthusiasts want. What the newspapers publish is broad information. The broad information is still very popular with general audiences, but for an enthusiast in Temecula wines it's not enough. That's where a niche publisher is going to make money.

But advertisers will still purchase ads in paper publications, it's just that there's only a fixed amount of ad dollars being spent in any given month, and newspapers are going to have to compete with websites to get those dollars.

I really like this blog, "Laid Off and Looking", that examines eight unemployed MBAs by having them post personal blogs.

Internet privacy experts have warned us all that as we create profiles on Facebook, upload photos, and publish blogs, that all we're doing is making ourselves transparent. That is, the world knows everything about us. And that's a bad thing.

But is it really?

On the one hand, you might argue that those eight MBAs, by having them publish their personal thoughts of being laid off, and looking for new jobs, is actually giving their potential employers too much information. But I think that's what actually helps people get jobs.

There was a time when I was a manager for a software company, and I had to hire people for my department. I didn't really care about how much experience they had. What I REALLY wanted was someone that I could train quickly, could train themselves, problem-solve on their own, actually care about their work, and be responsible enough to get projects completed on time.

In other words, I was a manager who didn't want to manage. And in fact, that's true of every manager. Those kind of employees are golden.

But those are qualities you cannot teach. People don't learn those skills in school either. That stuff gets burned into their psyche during their youth.

The actual job skills, processes and procedures can always be taught.

So if I knew that a job applicant had his/her own blog, I'd read it right away knowing it could tell me a lot of things. How often is it updated? Did they use a defaut template, or customize it? Does it look neat and clean? Do they use proper spelling and grammar? Do they make creative ideas? Do they write intelligently?

Of course, if you have a blog, and still can't do any of these things, then I probably would not hire you. But those things are not really hard to do. The fact that you can do them consistently suggests that you're one of those golden employees. I'd recommend everyone write a blog, of any subject, sign it with your real name knowing that your potential employer will Google you and find it.

Use it to your advantage.  

While reading the "letters to the editor" section of my local newspaper (I read their paper online), I found the following quote a local reader submitter...

As with the Times and every other newspaper, The Californian is also suffering under the diminishing economy and loss of advertising from suffering or no-longer-functioning businesses. I therefore try to patronize The Californian's advertisers.

I am not going to write about newspapers anymore. Over the past three or four years, I have devoted quite a number of my columns to issues in the newspaper industry. No more. I no longer believe that the industry is very relevant to the future and things digital.

A few days ago a friend replied back to me that the e-mail I had sent her somehow got caught in her spam filter, and had she spotted it while periodically reviewing her spam filter.

It made me wonder how many important e-mails I've missed due to ignoring my spam filter?

I hardly ever review it because there's just hundreds of spams that get sent to me each day, it's around 500, give or take a hundred. Reviewing the spam filter for potentially good e-mails, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack that you don't know is actually there.

That's why I don't bother.

But today, I decided to take a careful review of my spam filter, but only for the stuff that got caught today. And I ended up finding three "good" e-mails...

* One was from an affiliate network telling me about a new affiliate merchant. I consider that a good e-mail because I had requested them to notify me of this.

* Second was a person telling me her e-mail address had changed, and she wanted her new one to display on my cemetery records site.

* Third, was a beef jerky retailer who wanted to buy some advertising on my beef jerky review blog.

That third one made me shake my head in disgust, to think that if I had not decided to review my spam filter today, I'd never have the opportunity to make that money.

Albeit, I get many e-mails from people asking about buying ad space on one of my sites, but most of the time they are actually affiliate networks who simply want me to join their network. But this guy sounds like a real deal.

So, should I spend each day combing my spam filter for stuff that shouldn't belong? If I do that, then I suppose I should ask why even bother having a spam filter.

Right now, my spam filter is set to "medium". Maybe I'll try adjusting it down to "low" and see what happens.