WebProNews

Tag: search

  • The Pirate Bay Wants To Thank The RIAA For Censorship

    It’s no secret that the RIAA and the MPAA want Google and other search engines to stop listing sites like The Pirate Bay in their search results. The main problem is that Google makes it super easy to find pirated content online. Sure, just typing in a band name will return legitimate sources, but just add on The Pirate Bay to the search and BAM! – instant piracy.

    It’s that problem that has the RIAA so angry about Google and other search engines. People can still use Google to find this content and it’s just so infuriating for content owners. Well, the RIAA has an ally in wanting to censor search engines – The Pirate Bay. Wait, what?

    You heard that right, folks. The Pirate Bay would love nothing more than for Google, Bing and others to filter out their search results so that The Pirate Bay would never be listed again. Isn’t that a bad thing for the torrent tracker though? According to The Pirate Bay, only 10 percent of their traffic comes from these “competing search engines.” That’s not a lot, but why are they competing?

    The Pirate Bay fancies itself as being the most comprehensive media search engine on the Web. If Google and others were forced to remove The Pirate Bay from their results, that would leave only The Pirate Bay getting all that search traffic for media. Ten percent of 30 million users is still a lot and they would now be providing The Pirate Bay with direct searches.

    It’s pretty hard to argue with that kind of logic. Countless people numbering in the millions probably have The Pirate Bay bookmarked and visit it frequently. Policies that the copyright industries tries to push through only serves to help sites like The Pirate Bay.

    The Pirate Bay as they are wont to do issued their thanks to the RIAA in their own special way:

    So from the bottom of our hearts, THANK YOU RIAA, this is great news for us! For once, we support your efforts in something! Let’s make sure that TPB keeps on growing together!

    Hugs’n’kisses from your pals at The Pirate Bay – soon to be the biggest media search engine in the world!

    This is just the latest string in cases that finds attempts against The Pirate Bay to only prove futile, but extremely profitable for The Torrent Tracker. After being banned in the United Kingdom, The Pirate Bay saw its daily user count jump by over 10 million. The tracker also recently revealed that they have numerous IP addresses at their disposal to circumvent any and all attempts at censoring them.

    It’s moments like these that The Pirate Bay truly lives up to its mantra as “The galaxy’s most resilient BitTorrent site.”

  • IAB: Mobile Ad Market Was $5.3 Billion Last Year

    The Interactive Advertising Bureau and the IHS Screen Digest have sized up the mobile ad market, and have concluded that it was valued at $5.3 billion in 2011.

    By region, it breaks down like this: North America 31.4%; Europe 25.9%; Latin America 3.5%; Asia-Pacific 35.9%; Middle East & Africa 3.2%.

    “As mobile accelerates its global footprint, it is vital that we measure the worldwide and regional opportunities for advertisers,” said Anna Bager, Vice President and General Manager, Mobile Marketing Center of Excellence, IAB. “This key IAB initiative provides an accurate gauge of mobile market developments across the globe, with the aim of helping our members and the industry achieve even stronger growth through mobile.”

    Here’s a closer look at the numbers:

    ad-market-2011

    Things are looking pretty good on the search front, as you can see. Google, as you may know has been criticized for its monetization of mobile, though CEO Larry Page is “very bullish” on mobile going forward. Google just announced integration of Google Offers into its Schemer app, so that is another potential source of mobile revenue (assuming Schemer becomes significantly popular, which is a pretty big assumption, admittedly).

  • Bing Maps V7 API Adds Two More Data Modules, Updates Others

    Bing Maps V7 API Adds Two More Data Modules, Updates Others

    Bing Maps announced today that it’s added two new modules for the Bing Maps V7 API as well as some updates to a couple of existing modules. Till now, there were 15 different modules available for the Bing Maps V7 API, all of which were developed by the Bing Maps community and shared as a way to hasten the process of cooking up some maps.

    The first module, the GeoJSON Module, was developed by Brian Norman of Earthware, Ltd, a UK-based company that specializes in developing interactive web-based maps. As entailed from the name, the module will allow developers to import GeoJSON files into Bing Maps. GeoJSON is an encoding format used for depicting geographical structures in JavaScript Object notion (see where the JSON comes from now?). JSON is generally more compact than XML when it comes to storing human-readable geographic data, so this will allow some developers to conserve their memory resources.

    The second module introduced today is the Well Known Text Reader/Writer Module. This module was created by Ricky Brundritt, a EMEA Bing Maps Technology Solution Professional. According to Brundritt’s post on Bing Maps blog, he made this module because there wasn’t an any available module that allowed for quick visualization of Well Known Text on Bing Maps. “When reading Well Known Text data it is parsed into Bing Maps shapes; MultiPoint, MultiLinstring, MultiPolygon and GeometryCollection are turned into an EntityCollection of shapes,” he wrote. “To write Well Known Text simply pass in a Bing Maps shape and the Well Known Text equivalent will be returned.”

    Two of the existing Bing Maps modules that were updated are the GeoRSS Module, which enables sharing of spatial data as a syndication feed, and GPX Module, which makes it easier to view GPX files (typically used by GPS devices) to be viewed on Bing Maps.

    The two new modules can be download from today’s Bing Maps blog post; the previous 15 modules are available over at the Bing Maps V7 Modules website.

  • Google App Engine Gets Full Text Search

    Google App Engine Gets Full Text Search

    Google claims that a feature that has been consistently requested for App Engine was the addition of full text search. Those requests have not gone unheeded as Google has announced the feature to now be available.

    Google and its newly christened Google App Engine Full Text Search Team announced the feature’s availability yesterday. The project was announced at Google I/O last year, but this week marks its first time being available to the public on an experimental basis.

    So what does the experimental Search API accomplish? According to the Google Developers page for the API, it “allows your application to perform Google-like searches over structured data. You can search across several different types of data (plain text, HTML, atom, numbers, and dates). Searches return a sorted list of matching text, and you can customize the sorting and presentation of results.”

    The awesome part is that Google has created a test sample to let you get acquainted with how the new search function works. I’ve played around with it for a bit and found it to be extremely fast and easy to use. It picks up every single instance of the word or phrase I typed in throughout the text.

    It’s important to reiterate that this feature is still in the experimental stage. It should be mostly stable, but there will be bugs and other problems throughout the early days. That’s why Google needs developers to help test out the new full text search feature so it can get a firm grasp on all the bugs that need fixing. There’s already 14 open issues with the feature so help Google find more bugs so the feature can move from experimental to fully stable.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the Search API only works with applications using the High Replication Datastore. If your App Engine application is still using the old Master/Slave Datastore, you’re going to have to upgrade to take advantage of the new API.

    To get more information on the Search API and what it brings to App Engine, check out the video from last year’s Google I/O. I’m sure Google will talk about it again at this year’s I/O conference as well.

  • Demand Media Earnings: $86.2 Million In Revenue

    Demand Media just released its first quarter 2012 results, posting record first quarter revenue and raising 2012 guidance. For the quarter, ended March 31, total revenue was up 8% year-over-year, to $86.2 million

    CEO Richard Rosenblatt said, “Driven by continued growth across our businesses, our first quarter revenue exceeded our seasonally strong Q4 2011 results. We are pleased with our first quarter results and remain focused on investing in our long-term growth initiatives, including enhancing the quality of our Owned & Operated properties, expanding our content distribution channels and partnerships, and pursuing new generic Top Level Domain opportunities.”

    It was the second quarter in a row in which eHow saw revenue growth. The company’s free cash flow was also greatly impacted (increased by $11.8 million YoY) by the company’s decreased content spend on eHow.

    According to the report, eHow ranked as the #17 website in the US in March 2012, up from #19 in July 2011. LIVESTRONG.COM/eHow Health continued to rank as the #3 Health property in the US based on unique visits throughout the first quarter of 2012, it says.

    Another major point of interest:

    Owned & Operated page views increased 22% year-over-year, driven primarily by strong traffic growth to Cracked.com and LIVESTRONG.COM, partially offset by lower year-over-year eHow.com page views due to early 2011 search algorithm changes.

    That would be Google’s Panda update. During its last earnings call, however, the company said it had not been impacted by a Google algorithm change since July. We’ll be listening to today’s call, and will see what they have to say about it this time. Stay tuned.

    For now, here’s the release in its entirety:

    SANTA MONICA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–May. 8, 2012– Demand Media, Inc. (NYSE: DMD), a leading content and social media company, today reported financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and raised its previously issued fiscal 2012 financial guidance.

    “Driven by continued growth across our businesses, our first quarter revenue exceeded our seasonally strong Q4 2011 results,” said Richard Rosenblatt, Chairman and CEO of Demand Media. “We are pleased with our first quarter results and remain focused on investing in our long-term growth initiatives, including enhancing the quality of our Owned & Operated properties, expanding our content distribution channels and partnerships, and pursuing new generic Top Level Domain opportunities.”

    Financial Summary
    In millions, except per share amounts
    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012 Change
    Total Revenue $ 79.5 $ 86.2 8 %
    Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC(1) $ 48.7 $ 50.6 4 %
    Registrar Revenue 27.7 32.3 17 %
    Total Revenue ex-TAC(1) $ 76.3 $ 82.9 9 %
    Income (loss) from Operations(2) $ (4.2 ) $ (2.9 ) NA
    Adjusted EBITDA(1) $ 20.1 $ 21.9 9 %
    Net income (loss)(2) $ (5.6 ) $ (1.8 ) NA
    Adjusted net income(1) $ 5.1 $ 5.9 17 %
    EPS(2) $ (0.13 ) $ (0.02 ) NA
    Adjusted EPS(1) $ 0.06 $ 0.07 17 %
    Cash Flow from Operations $ 19.2 $ 18.5 (4 )%
    Free Cash Flow(1) $ (0.1 ) $ 11.8 NA
    (1) Non-GAAP measures are described below and reconciled to their comparable GAAP measures in the accompanying tables. Effective Q1 2012, the Company is reporting Adjusted EBITDA instead of Adjusted OIBDA. Reconciliations for both measures are presented on the Company’s investor relations site.
    (2) Q1 2012 loss from operations and net loss include $1.8 million of accelerated non-cash amortization expense associated with content intangible assets removed from service in conjunction with the Company’s previously announced plan to improve its content creation and distribution platform.

    Q1 2012 Financial Summary:

    • Content & Media revenue ex-TAC grew 4% year-over-year and increased 1% compared to the fourth quarter of 2011. Year-over-year comparisons were impacted by early 2011 search algorithm changes. The 1% sequential improvement included the second consecutive quarter of revenue growth for eHow.
    • Registrar revenue grew 17% year-over-year and 3% compared to the fourth quarter of 2011. During the first quarter of 2012, the number of registered domains grew by a net 593,000 compared to 442,000 in the first quarter of 2011, due to growth from new partners and organic growth from resellers.
    • Loss from operations and net loss include $1.8 million of accelerated non-cash amortization expense associated with content intangible assets removed from service in conjunction with the Company’s previously announced plan to improve its content creation and distribution platform.
    • Free cash flow increased by $11.8 million year-over-year. The increase was driven by an 81% reduction of investment in intangible assets to $2.7 million. The intangible assets investment decline was the result of planned decreased content spend on eHow as the Company continued to make improvements to its content creation and distribution platform.

    “Our first quarter growth and significant free cash flow marks a great start for 2012, particularly in light of a tough year-over-year comparison due to early 2011 search algorithm changes,” said Charles Hilliard, President and CFO. “Demand Media’s increased guidance reflects our first quarter performance, our improved outlook for the remainder of 2012 and, for the first time in more than a year, a return to accelerating year-over-year revenue growth beginning in Q2.”

    Business Highlights:

    • In April 2012, Demand Media invested $18 million in pursuit of its generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) initiative, which it believes represents a complementary strategic growth opportunity for its Registrar services.
    • On a consolidated basis, Demand Media ranked as a top 20 US web property throughout the first quarter of 2012, ranking as #18 in March 2012(1). Demand Media’s worldwide unique users exceeded 104 million in March 2012(1).
    • On a standalone basis, eHow.com ranked as the #17 website in the US in March 2012, up from #19 inJuly 2011(1).
    • LIVESTRONG.COM/eHow Health continued to rank as the #3 Health property in the US based on unique visits throughout the first quarter of 2012(1). In May 2012, LIVESTRONG.COM won the People’s Voice Webby award for Health Websites.
    • Cracked.com continued its ranking as the most visited humor site in the US throughout the first quarter of 2012(1), and more time was spent on the site than any other humor website(1). In May 2012, Cracked.com won the People’s Voice Webby award for Humor Websites.
    • In February 2012, Demand Media introduced its innovative Social Feed ads, which allow advertisers to deliver customized social media content directly into their live rich media ads.
    • In March 2012, Demand Media launched the eHow.com Tech channel, with RadioShack as its lead sponsor, to help users master everyday tech-related tasks and projects.
    • In April 2012, Demand Media launched eHow Pets, the third major channel in its partnership withYouTube.
    • During the first quarter of 2012, Demand Media repurchased 421,000 shares of common stock for $3 million under its Board-authorized $50 million share repurchase program. Since the program’s inception, the Company has repurchased 2.8 million shares of common stock for $20 million.

    (1) Source: comScore.

    Operating Metrics:

    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012
    Change
    Content & Media Metrics:
    Owned and operated
    Page views(1) (in millions) 2,582 3,142 22 %
    RPM(2) $ 15.69 $ 12.52 (20 )%
    Network of customer websites
    Page views(1) (in millions) 3,766 4,722 25 %
    RPM(2) $ 3.01 $ 3.10 3 %
    RPM ex-TAC(3) $ 2.16 $ 2.38 10 %
    Registrar Metrics:
    End of Period # of Domains(4) (in millions) 11.4 13.3 16 %
    Average Revenue per Domain(5) $ 9.88 $ 9.94 1 %

    ____________________

    (1) Page views represent the total number of web pages viewed across (a) our owned and operated websites and/or (b) our network of customer websites, to the extent that the viewed customer web pages host the Company’s content, social media and/or monetization services.
    (2) RPM is defined as Content & Media revenue per one thousand page views.
    (3) RPM ex-TAC is defined as Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC per one thousand page views.
    (4) Domain is defined as an individual domain name paid for by a third-party customer where the domain name is managed through our Registrar service offering.
    (5) Average revenue per domain is calculated by dividing Registrar revenue for a period by the average number of domains registered in that period. Average revenue per domain for partial year periods is annualized.

    Beginning July 1, 2011, the number of net new domains has been adjusted to include only new registered domains added to our platform for which the Company has recognized revenue. Excluding the impact of this change, end of period # of domains at March 31, 2012 and average revenue per domain during the three months ended March 31, 2012 would have increased 20% and decreased 4%, respectively, compared to the corresponding prior-year periods.

    Q1 2012 Operating Metrics:

    • Owned & Operated page views increased 22% year-over-year, driven primarily by strong traffic growth to Cracked.com and LIVESTRONG.COM, partially offset by lower year-over-year eHow.com page views due to early 2011 search algorithm changes. The mix shift in page view growth to relatively lower RPM properties in Q1 2012 resulted in a 20% year-over-year decline in RPM.
    • Network page views grew 25% year-over-year, primarily due to the acquisition of IndieClick in August 2011, which generated 1.6 billion page views during the quarter ended March 31, 2012, offset partly by a decline in page views associated with certain of our social media customers. Network RPM ex-TAC increased 10% year-over-year, reflecting higher RPMs from YouTube Channels that more than offset lower RPMs from IndieClick.
    • End of period domains increased 16% to 13.3 million year-over-year, driven by the addition of higher volume customers and growth from existing resellers, with average revenue per domain increasing by 1%.

    Business Outlook

    The following forward-looking information includes certain projections made by management as of the date of this press release. The Company does not intend to revise or update this information, except as required by law, and may not provide this type of information in the future. Due to a variety of factors, actual results may differ significantly from those projected. The factors that may affect results include, without limitation, the factors referenced later in this announcement under the caption “Cautionary Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” These and other factors are discussed in more detail in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Excluding up to $4 million of 2012 expenses that the Company expects to incur related to the formation of its generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) initiative, the Company’s guidance for the second quarter endingJune 30, 2012 and fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 is as follows:

    Second Quarter 2012

    • Revenue in the range of $89.0 – $91.0 million
    • Revenue ex-TAC in the range of $85.0 – $87.0 million
    • Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $22.0 – $23.0 million
    • Adjusted EPS in the range of $0.07 – $0.08 per share
    • Weighted average diluted shares of 86.0 – 87.0 million

    Full Year 2012

    • Revenue in the range of $361.0 – $367.0 million
    • Revenue ex-TAC in the range of $347.0 – $353.0 million
    • Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $96.0 – $99.0 million
    • Adjusted EPS in the range of $0.33 – $0.35 per share
    • Weighted average diluted shares of 86.5 – 87.5 million

    Conference Call and Webcast Information

    Demand Media will host a corresponding conference call and live webcast at 5:00 p.m. Eastern timetoday. To access the conference call, dial 877.565.1268 (for domestic participants) or 937.999.3108 (for international participants). The conference ID is 74265713. To participate on the live call, analysts should dial-in at least 10-minutes prior to the commencement of the call. A live webcast also will be available on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s corporate website at http://ir.demandmedia.com and via replay beginning approximately two hours after the completion of the call.

    About Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    To supplement our consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), we use certain non-GAAP financial measures described below. The presentation of this additional financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. For more information on these non-GAAP financial measures, please see the tables captioned “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures to Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations” included in this release.

    Effective Q1 2012, the Company is reporting Adjusted EBITDA instead of Adjusted OIBDA. While the dollar value of each measure is the same, a comparison of the historical reconciliation of both measures is provided in our supplemental financial schedules posted on the investor relations section of our corporate site. The non-GAAP financial measures presented in this release are the primary measures used by the Company’s management and board of directors to understand and evaluate its financial performance and operating trends, including period to period comparisons, to prepare and approve its annual budget and to develop short and long term operational plans. Additionally, Adjusted EBITDA is the primary measure used by the compensation committee of the Company’s board of directors to establish the funding targets for and fund its annual employee bonus pool. We believe our presented non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors both because (1) they allow for greater transparency with respect to key metrics used by management in its financial and operational decision making and (2) management frequently uses them in its discussions with investors, commercial bankers, securities analysts and other users of its financial statements.

    Revenue ex-TAC is defined by the Company as GAAP revenue less traffic acquisition costs (“TAC”). TAC comprises the portion of Content & Media GAAP revenue shared with the Company’s network customers. Management believes that Revenue ex-TAC is a meaningful measure of operating performance because it is frequently used for internal managerial purposes and helps facilitate a more complete period-to-period understanding of factors and trends affecting the Company’s underlying revenue performance.

    Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“Adjusted EBITDA”) is defined by the Company as net income (loss) before income tax expense, other income (expense), interest expense (income), depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, as well as the financial impact of acquisition and realignment costs, the formation expenses directly related to its generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) initiative, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

    Management believes that these non-GAAP measures reflect the Company’s business in a manner that allows for meaningful period to period comparisons and analysis of trends. In particular, the exclusion of certain expenses in calculating Adjusted EBITDA can provide a useful measure for period to period comparisons of the Company’s underlying recurring revenue and operating costs which is focused more closely on the current costs necessary to utilize previously acquired long-lived assets. In addition, management believes that it can be useful to exclude certain non-cash charges because the amount of such expenses is the result of long-term investment decisions in previous periods rather than day-to-day operating decisions. For example, due to the long-lived nature of a majority of its media content, the revenue generated by the Company’s content assets in a given period bears little relationship to the amount of its investment in content in that same period. Accordingly, management believes that content acquisition costs represent a discretionary long-term capital investment decision undertaken at a point in time. This investment decision is clearly distinguishable from other ongoing business activities, and its discretionary nature and long-term impact differentiate it from specific period transactions, decisions regarding day-to-day operations, and activities that would have an immediate impact on operating or financial performance if materially changed, deferred or terminated.

    Adjusted Earnings Per Share is defined by the Company as Adjusted Net Income divided by the weighted average number of shares outstanding. Adjusted Net Income is defined by the Company as net income (loss) before the effect of stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible assets acquired via business combinations, accelerated amortization of intangible assets removed from service, acquisition and realignment costs, the formation expenses directly related to its generic Top Level Domain(“gTLD”) initiative, and any gains or losses on certain asset sales or dispositions, and is calculated using the application of a normalized effective tax rate. Acquisition and realignment costs include such items, when applicable, as (1) non-cash GAAP purchase accounting adjustments for certain deferred revenue and costs, (2) legal, accounting and other professional fees directly attributable to acquisition activity, and (3) employee severance payments attributable to acquisition or corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these expenses to be indicative of the Company’s ongoing operating results or future outlook.

    Management believes that Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share provide investors with additional useful information to measure the Company’s underlying financial performance, particularly from period to period, because these measures are exclusive of certain non-cash expenses not directly related to the operation of its ongoing business (such as amortization of intangible assets acquired via business combinations, as well as certain other non-cash expenses such as purchase accounting adjustments and stock-based compensation) and include a normalized effective tax rate based on the Company’s statutory tax rate.

    Discretionary Free Cash Flow is defined by the Company as net cash provided by operating activities excluding cash outflows from acquisition and realignment activities, and the formation expenses directly related to its generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) initiative, less capital expenditures to acquire property and equipment. Free Cash Flow is defined by the Company as Discretionary Free Cash Flow less investments in intangible assets. Management believes that Discretionary Free Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow provide investors with additional useful information to measure operating liquidity because they reflect the Company’s underlying cash flows from recurring operating activities after investing in capital assets and intangible assets. These measures are used by management, and may also be useful for investors, to assess the Company’s ability to generate cash flow for a variety of strategic opportunities, including reinvestment in the business, potential acquisitions, payment of dividends and share repurchases.

    The use of these non-GAAP financial measures has certain limitations because they do not reflect all items of income and expense, or cash flows that affect the Company’s operations. An additional limitation of these non-GAAP financial measures is that they do not have standardized meanings, and therefore other companies may use the same or similarly-named measures but exclude different items or use different computations. Management compensates for these limitations by reconciling these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures within its financial press releases. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for, measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. Further, these non-GAAP financial measures may differ from the non-GAAP information used by other companies, including peer companies, and therefore comparability may be limited. We encourage investors and others to review our financial information in its entirety and not rely on a single financial measure. The accompanying tables have more details on the GAAP financial measures and the related reconciliations.

    About Demand Media

    Demand Media, Inc. (NYSE: DMD) is a leading content and social media company that informs and entertains one of the Internet’s largest audiences, helps advertisers find innovative ways to engage with their customers and enables publishers to expand their online presence. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Demand Media has offices in North America, South America and Europe. For more information aboutDemand Media, please visit www.demandmedia.com

    Cautionary Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties regarding the Company’s future financial performance, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, financial condition, operating performance and results of operations, including certain assumptions related thereto. Statements containing words such as “guidance,” “may,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “project,” “projections,” “business outlook,” and “estimate” or similar expressions constitute forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from the results predicted, and reported results should not be considered an indication of future performance. Potential risks and uncertainties include, among others: changes in the methodologies of Internet search engines, including ongoing algorithmic changes made byGoogle to its search results as well as possible future changes, and the impact such changes may have on page view growth and driving search related traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; changes in our content creation and distribution platform, including the possible repurposing of content to alternate distribution channels, or the sale or removal of content; our ability to successfully launch, produce and monetize new content formats; the inherent challenges of estimating the overall impact on page views and search driven traffic to our owned and operated websites based on the data available to us as Google continues to make adjustments to its search algorithms; our ability to compete with new or existing competitors; our ability to maintain or increase our advertising revenue; our ability to continue to drive and grow traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; our ability to effectively monetize our portfolio of content; our dependence on material agreements with a specific business partner for a significant portion of our revenue; future internal rates of return on content investment and our decision to invest in different types of content in the future, including video and other formats of text content; our ability to attract and retain freelance creative professionals; changes in our level of investment in media content intangibles; the effects of changes in marketing expenditures or shifts in marketing expenditures; the effects of seasonality on traffic to our owned and operated websites and the websites of our network customers; our ability to continue to add partners to our registrar platform on competitive terms; our ability to successfully pursue and implement our gTLD initiative; changes in stock-based compensation; changes in amortization or depreciation expense due to a variety of factors; potential write downs, reserves against or impairment of assets including receivables, goodwill, intangibles, and media content or other assets; changes in tax laws, our business or other factors that would impact anticipated tax benefits or expenses; our ability to successfully identify, consummate and integrate acquisitions, including integrating our recent acquisitions; our ability to retain key customers and key personnel; risks associated with litigation; the impact of governmental regulation; and the effects of discontinuing or discontinued business operations. From time to time, we may consider acquisitions or divestitures that, if consummated, could be material. Any forward-looking statements regarding financial metrics are based upon the assumption that no such acquisition or divestiture is consummated during the relevant periods. If an acquisition or divestiture were consummated, actual results could differ materially from any forward-looking statements. More information about potential risk factors that could affect our operating and financial results are contained in our annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (http://www.sec.gov) on February 24, 2012, and as such risk factors may be updated in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, information under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

    Furthermore, as discussed above, the Company does not intend to revise or update the information set forth in this press release, except as required by law, and may not provide this type of information in the future.

    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012
    Revenue $ 79,523 $ 86,234
    Operating expenses
    Service costs (exclusive of amortization of intangible assets shown separately below) (1) (2) 37,654 41,262
    Sales and marketing (1) (2) 9,583 10,393
    Product development (1) (2) 9,251 10,124
    General and administrative (1) (2) 17,024 15,395
    Amortization of intangible assets 10,203 11,956
    Total operating expenses 83,715 89,130
    Income (loss) from operations (4,192 ) (2,896 )
    Other income (expense)
    Interest income 42 15
    Interest expense (162 ) (137 )
    Other income (expense), net (257 ) (19 )
    Total other expense (377 ) (141 )
    Income (loss) before income taxes (4,569 ) (3,037 )
    Income tax expense (1,013 ) 1,195
    Net loss $ (5,582 ) $ (1,842 )
    (1) Stock-based compensation expense included in the line items above:
    Service costs $ 237 $ 708
    Sales and marketing 900 1,536
    Product development 1,116 1,688
    General and administrative 6,674 3,459
    Total stock-based compensation expense $ 8,927 $ 7,391
    (2) Depreciation included in the line items above:
    Service costs $ 4,044 $ 3,650
    Sales and marketing 72 134
    Product development 321 282
    General and administrative 572 898
    Total depreciation $ 5,009 $ 4,964
    Loss per common share:
    Net loss $ (5,582 ) $ (1,842 )
    Cumulative preferred stock dividends (3) (2,477 )
    Net loss attributable to common stockholders $ (8,059 ) $ (1,842 )
    Basic and diluted net loss per share $ (0.13 ) $ (0.02 )
    Weighted average number of shares 63,759 82,942
    (3) As a result of the Company’s initial public offering which was completed on January 31, 2011, all shares of the Company’s preferred stock were converted to common stock.
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

    (In thousands)

    December 31,
    2011
    March 31, 
    2012
    Current assets
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 86,035 $ 95,568
    Accounts receivable, net 32,665 32,323
    Prepaid expenses and other current assets 8,656 7,995
    Deferred registration costs 50,636 56,540
    Total current assets 177,992 192,426
    Property and equipment, net 32,626 34,481
    Intangible assets, net 111,304 101,864
    Goodwill 256,060 256,060
    Deferred registration costs 9,555 11,249
    Other long-term assets 2,566 4,239
    Total assets $ 590,103 $ 600,319
    Liabilities, Convertible Preferred Stock and Stockholders’ Equity
    Current liabilities
    Accounts payable $ 10,046 $ 7,871
    Accrued expenses and other current liabilities 33,932 33,706
    Deferred tax liabilities 18,288 18,663
    Deferred revenue 71,109 76,844
    Total current liabilities 133,375 137,084
    Deferred revenue 14,802 16,540
    Other liabilities 1,660 3,160
    Total liabilities 149,837 156,784
    Stockholders’ equity
    Common stock and additional paid-in capital 528,042 536,150
    Treasury stock (17,064 ) (20,055 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive income 59 53
    Accumulated deficit (70,771 ) (72,613 )
    Total stockholders’ equity 440,266 443,535
    Total liabilities, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity $ 590,103 $ 600,319
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

    Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

    (In thousands)

    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012
    Cash flows from operating activities:
    Net loss $ (5,582 ) $ (1,842 )
    Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:
    Depreciation and amortization 15,212 16,920
    Stock-based compensation 8,836 7,391
    Other 855 (1,420 )
    Net change in operating assets and liabilities, net of effect of acquisitions (101 ) (2,571 )
    Net cash provided by operating activities 19,220 18,478
    Cash flows from investing activities:
    Purchases of property and equipment (5,084 ) (4,321 )
    Purchases of intangibles (14,204 ) (2,703 )
    Cash paid for acquisitions (3,839 ) (243 )
    Net cash used in investing activities (23,127 ) (7,267 )
    Cash flows from financing activities:
    Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net 78,874
    Repurchases of common stock (2,990 )
    Proceeds from exercises of stock options and contributions to ESPP 851 2,115
    Other (108 ) (796 )
    Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities 79,617 (1,671 )
    Effect of foreign currency on cash and cash equivalents 8 (7 )
    Change in cash and cash equivalents 75,718 9,533
    Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period 32,338 86,035
    Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 108,056 $ 95,568
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

    Reconciliations of Non-GAAP Measures to Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations

    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012
    Revenue ex-TAC:
    Content & Media revenue $ 51,852 $ 53,963
    Less: traffic acquisition costs (TAC) (3,190 ) (3,379 )
    Content & Media Revenue ex-TAC 48,662 50,584
    Registrar revenue 27,671 32,271
    Total Revenue ex-TAC $ 76,333 $ 82,855
    Adjusted EBITDA(1):
    Net loss $ (5,582 ) $ (1,842 )
    Income tax expense/(benefit) 1,013 (1,195 )
    Interest and other expense, net 377 141
    Depreciation and amortization(2) 15,212 16,920
    Stock-based compensation 8,927 7,391
    Acquisition and realignment costs(3) 133 61
    gTLD expense(4) 429
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 20,080 $ 21,905
    Discretionary and Total Free Cash Flow:
    Net cash provided by operating activities $ 19,220 $ 18,478
    Purchases of property and equipment (5,084 ) (4,321 )
    gTLD expense cash flows(4) 314
    Discretionary Free Cash Flow 14,136 14,471
    Purchases of intangible assets (14,204 ) (2,703 )
    Free Cash Flow $ (68 ) $ 11,768
    Adjusted Net Income:
    GAAP net income (loss) $ (5,582 ) $ (1,842 )
    (a) Stock-based compensation 8,927 7,391
    (b) Amortization of intangible assets – M&A 3,733 2,929
    (c) Content intangible assets removed from service(2) 1,818
    (d) Acquisition and realignment costs(3) 133 61
    (e) gTLD expense(4) 429
    (f) Income tax effect of items (a) – (e) & application of 38% statutory tax rate to pre-tax income (2,112 ) (4,840 )
    Adjusted Net Income $ 5,099 $ 5,946
    Non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted $ 0.06 $ 0.07
    Shares used to calculate non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted (5) 89,861 85,540
    (1) Effective Q1 2012, the Company is reporting Adjusted EBITDA instead of Adjusted OIBDA. While the dollar value of each measure does not differ, a comparison of the historical reconciliation of both measures is provided in our supplemental financial schedules posted on our investor relations site.
    (2) In conjunction with its previously announced plans to improve its content creation and distribution platform, the Company elected to remove certain content assets from service, resulting in $1.8 million of accelerated amortization expense in the first quarter of 2012.
    (3) Acquisition and realignment costs include non-cash purchase accounting adjustments, acquisition-related legal and accounting professional fees and employee severance payments attributable to corporate realignment activities. Management does not consider these costs to be indicative of the Company’s core operating results.
    (4) Comprises formation expenses directly related to the Company’s gTLDs initiative that is not expected to generate associated revenue in 2012.
    (5) Shares used to calculate non-GAAP Adjusted Net Income per share – diluted include the weighted average common stock and restricted stock for the periods presented and all dilutive common stock equivalent at each period. Amounts have been adjusted in 2011 to reflect the revised capital structure following the Company’s initial public offering which was completed on January 31, 2011, whereby the Company issued 5,175 shares of common stock and converted certain warrants and all of the convertible preferred stock into 62,155 shares of common stock as if those transactions were consummated on January 1, 2011.
    Demand Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

    Unaudited GAAP Revenue, by Revenue Source

    (In thousands)

    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012
    Content & Media:
    Owned and operated websites $ 40,524 $ 39,348
    Network of customer websites   11,328   14,615
    Total revenue – Content & Media   51,852   53,963
    Registrar   27,671   32,271
    Total revenue $ 79,523 $ 86,234
    Three months ended March 31,
    2011 2012
    Content & Media:
    Owned and operated websites   51 %   46 %
    Network of customer websites   14 %   17 %
    Total revenue – Content & Media   65 %   63 %
    Registrar   35 %   37 %
    Total revenue   100 %   100 %

     

    Source: Demand Media, Inc.

  • Wal-Mart, eBay Try Out New Search Engines

    Wal-Mart, eBay Try Out New Search Engines

    Reuters is reporting today that both EBay and Wal-Mart are replacing their outdated search engines in order to compete with online retailers such as Amazon.

    The report states that eBay will soon implement a new search engine it is calling “Cassini”, which will replace the antiquated “Voyager.” EBay search was dismal in 2008, and eBay sellers have never held back their criticism. From the Reuters story:

    Since then, eBay has gone on a hiring spree to fix search. The number of employees working in that area has tripled to more than 150. EBay also poached several engineers from Microsoft Corp’s Bing search unit, including Ken Moss, who runs the Seattle office, and Hugh Williams, who oversees eBay’s new search engine, Cassini, to be rolled out in 2013.

    Wal-Mart is also updating its online store search, but is going a different route with its design. Reuters cites Anand Rajaraman, Wal-Mart’s senior vice president for global ecommerce, as stating that Wal-Mart’s new search engine was created in under nine months by only 10 to 15 developers. The new search relates “terms and phrases that people use when describing products, rather than matching queries to exact words in listings.”

    The Reuters story states that if sites such as eBay and Wal-Mart improve their search enough, they could threaten Google’s shopping search results. This seems far-fetched, though, as those companies would have to provide shopping results from competitors to match the usefulness of Google.

    Of course, these companies could simply use Amazon itself to implement search, which is available as part of Amazon Web Services (AWS). I suppose paying Amazon directly would defeat the purpose of improving their searches, though. What do you think? Can eBay impress its sellers with Cassini? Will Wal-Mart improve its search enough to overtake Amazon on the web? Leave a comment below and let me know.

    (via Reuters)

  • Is the Internet Becoming Less Open?

    Is the Internet Becoming Less Open?

    Although the issue of Web openness has been mostly quiet of late, it was revived after Google’s Sergey Brin made some powerful statements to the Guardian. According to him, the freedom of the Internet is under a greater threat than it has ever been before.

    “I am more worried than I have been in the past,” he tells the Guardian. “It’s scary.”

    Brin also indicated that he and fellow Google co-founder Larry Page would not be able to build their search engine in the current Internet environment given restrictive players such as Facebook. He categorized both Facebook and Apple as “walled gardens” saying they have too many limitations within their services.

    As one can imagine, Brin’s statements have gained a considerable amount of criticism. What’s more, his perspective has also reignited the debate over what true openness actually is and what real threats lie with it.

    How do you define a truly open Internet? We’d love to know.

    The Web quickly responded to Brin’s interview with numerous claims of Google being hypocritical. Bobbie Johnson on GigaOM compiled a comprehensive piece on the Web’s reaction including statements from Dave Winer, Andrew Keen, and others.

    Rebecca Lieb, analyst with the Altimeter Group WebProNews spoke with Rebecca Lieb, an analyst with the Altimeter Group and who is also veteran in the search industry, about the matter and she told us that Brin lumped two very different types of openness together. As she explained, the one side of openness covers government censorships and restrictions in regimes such as China and the Middle East. The other side of Web openness, she continued, is Web-specific and deals with “walled gardens.”

    “It’s disingenuous to put the two in the same basket, which is what Brin is doing,” she said. “One is a very, very important social and political discussion; the other is a business discussion.”

    The most recent threat to Internet freedom or net neutrality has been in regards to telecommunications’ companies hampering with Web access. While it is real and should be addressed, Lieb told us that there are other threats, including Brin’s concerns, that exist as well. However, she believes they are all on various levels of importance and should, therefore, be handled differently.

    “There are threats to free and open Internet access through business, through governments, through anti-democratic means, but they can’t really all be lumped in one basket,” she said.

    On the business side of the threat and in reference to the “walled gardens” that Brin mentioned, Lieb told us that his point would have been clearer if he had not mentioned direct competitors to Google. Even though he raised some legitimate points in this regard, she said she would have liked to see him take his argument outside of potential business threats to Google.

    In addition, his bringing Google’s competitors to the table make it easier for his stance to come under attack, especially in light of recent actions from the search giant. For example, in Matt Cutts‘ latest video, he reminds people how Google may remove or demote a website.

    “We do reserve the right to take action, whether it be demotion or removal, and we think we have to apply our best judgment,” said Cutts.

    Here’s his complete video:

    Another example is when Google announced that it was beginning to encrypt searches when users are logged into Google.com. This move, as Lieb explained, limits the openness that people once had since Google no longer shares the keyword referral data with those who don’t advertise on Google.

    As evidenced in the below piece that WPN did last year when the news transpired, the overall consensus from the SEO community, including Lieb, was that this move was evil:

    After these and other issues were raised, Brin spoke out on his Google+ account and said his words were taken out of context calling the Guardian report a “short summary of a long discussion.” He clarified that he did not think the openness of digital ecosystems was “on par” with government censorship of the Web.

    Also, to address the comments made specifically about Google’s own practices, Brin wrote:

    “So what was my concern and what about Google for that matter?
I became an entrepreneur during the 90’s, the boom time of what you might now call Web 1.0. Yahoo created a directory of all the sites they could find without asking anyone for permission. Ebay quickly became the largest auction company in the world without having to pay a portion of revenue to any ISP. Paypal became the most successful payment company and Amazon soared in e-commerce also without such tolls or any particular company’s permission. 



    Today, starting such a service would entail navigating a number of new tollbooths and gatekeepers. If you are interested in this issue I recommend you read http://futureoftheinternet.org/ by +Jonathan Zittrain. While openness is a core value at Google, there are a number of areas where we can improve too (as the book outlines).

But regardless of how you feel about digital ecosystems or about Google, please do not take the free and open internet for granted from government intervention. To the extent that free flow of information threatens the powerful, those in power will seek to suppress it.”

    Lieb agrees with Brin in that she believes the real concerns and threats to Internet freedom lie in anti-net neutrality and the government regimes that block Internet access. Furthermore, the oppression in the Middle East and other regions over the past couple of years only solidifies what an important role the Internet plays in staying connected to the world.

    “The business threats posed by a Facebook or a Bing, or even a Google or a Apple, are small potatoes compared to really anti-democratic Internet threats such as those posed by anti-net neutrality or the governments in oppressive or non-democratic regimes worldwide,” she said.

    She went on to say that more lobbying needs to happen in Washington to raise awareness of these very real threats.

    Do you think the “open Web” is at risk? If so, what are the real threats you see? Please share.

  • Woman Crying Uncontrollably While Being Frisked by the TSA (video)

    New video seems to be coming in daily of horrific incidents involving the TSA. This video captures an incident of a grown woman sobbing uncontrollably while being frisked by a TSA agent.

    The video was captured by blogger Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit. Hoft isn’t fond of Barrack Obama and apparently the TSA is all his fault, even though the organization was signed into law by George W. Bush as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The organization became a part of Department of Homeland Security in 2003. “It’s an Obama world”, the blogger writes.

    Though no history about this particular woman has been released, 1 out of 6 American women have been the victim of sexual violence in their lifetime. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common diagnosis among victims of sexual abuse, causing victims to relive the experience in situations that may induce these flashbacks.

    Whether or not this woman falls into this category is unclear, but 1 in 6 is a hard figure to ignore when you consider the amount of women being groped daily by the TSA. What better way to fly than to relive a past traumatic experience? Thank you TSA.

    See Also:

    TSA Employee Exposes Serious Security Flaws

    Student’s Science Project Shuts Down Dallas Airport

    Screener Sentenced in Child Porn Case

    TSA Searches Wheelchair Bound Child

  • Bing Details Paginated And Sequenced Content Implementation

    For the sake of conversation, let’s say you are the admin of a Web site. If you are already, that’s even better. You prioritize how your Web site pages are linked to be picked up more easily by search engines. Maybe you’re not getting as much of a return as you would like through Bing searches though. If that’s the case, Microsoft has the cure for your ills.

    On the Bing Webmaster blog, David Flink, Lead Program Manager for Bing, took some time out to discuss how Web site admins can better index their content with Bing through paginated and sequenced content. Flink starts out by saying that Bing relies on “a set of heuristics to determine if and how individual pages on a site are related to each other.”

    To that end, Flink says you can use the optional rel=”next” and rel=”prev” link elements to give Bing a better indication of “the structure and scope of the sequenced content on your site.” Using these elements gives you full control over the sequencing of your pages.

    The first example shows you how to use these link elements to organize your pages in an oldest-to-newest sequence. You should use this order if your viewers prefer to read their pages starting with the old first and moving on with the new. Here’s the line of code you should follow to implement this particular order:

    Bing Details Paginated And Sequenced Content Implementation

    The second and more popular order for blog posts is newest to oldest. This is similar to the first example, but instead of pointing to newer articles, the rel=”next” points to older blog posts. It’s important to remember that with both of these examples that you not have multiple link elements on your pages.

    Bing Details Paginated And Sequenced Content Implementation

    Once you have decided on which sequence you want, you’re going to have to prioritize it for multi-page content. Here’s an example of how to use an oldest-to-newest sequence with multi-page content.

    Bing Details Paginated And Sequenced Content Implementation

    Implementing this won’t change the way your pages are displayed on Bing, it just gives the search engine a better understanding of how to index a Web site’s content. Here’s some more in-depth tips to get the most out of link elements:

    Link elements should be added within the section of your pages. Alternative implementations, such as the addition of rel attributes to anchor elements in the body of your pages, are currently not supported.

    Using the rel=”next” and rel=”prev” link elements, you establish a relationship between at most 3 pages on your site: the current page, the page immediately preceding the current page (rel=”prev”) and the page immediately following the current page (rel=”next”). Note that the first page in the sequence should just contain the rel=”next” link element, while the last page in the sequence should contain just the rel=”prev” link element.

    Avoid adding more than one rel=”next” and more than one rel=”prev” link element to your pages. URL parameters, such as the ones includes in the example above, should be reflected in the HREF attributes of your link elements. URL parameters appended solely for tracking purposes, such as search queries and session identifiers, can also be appended. To avoid having these URL parameter surface in search results for your pages, you can use the rel=”canonical” link element to specify a preferred URL for the content displayed.

    You are free to exclude certain pages within the sequence (after applying the rel=”next” and rel=”prev” link elements) from indexing using the following meta element:

    These tips should help you better index your content with Bing. Not only does it help Bing better understand your site, but it will help potential hits better find your site as well.

  • What The U.S. Search Market’s Been Up To Since 2008 [Infographic]

    On the Web, search is king. Even though a new Google Consumer Survey found that only 1 in 5 Americans knows what SEO is, just about everybody in the Web content industry not only knows about search engine optimization, but also formats and titles content in an effort to get noticed by Google’s complex algorithms.

    You can be white hat, black hat, or some shade of grey in the search world, but no matter your strategy, you know that there are a lot of page views (and consequently digital clout, ad revenue, and/or product sales) riding on your making it to the top of the search results pile. Google, of course, is king of the mountain, while Microsoft’s Bing recently surpassed Yahoo as the distant second place holder.

    Here’s an infographic from Statista that describes the search market in the United States. Search results handled by the five major search engines are up 68% since January 2008, to some 17 billion monthly queries today.

    [Statista; Image Source: ThinkStock]

  • eBay Sells Rent.com To Primedia

    eBay Sells Rent.com To Primedia

    eBay has sold Rent.com to Primedia, which also owns ApartmentGuide.com, Rentals.com, RentalHouses.com and NewHomeGuide.com. The property search site should fit right in.

    eBay says Rent.com had “limited synergies” with its core business, and that the company is “focusing on enabling commerce for buyers and sellers globally through platforms and technology.

    You might recall a couple of recent, and pretty major PayPal announcements in PayPal Here and PayPal Digital Wallet. I’m assuming it’s things like this eBay is referencing.

    “Rent.com has a strong reputation, brand awareness, history and URL,” Primedia CEO Charles Stubbs said. “Both Rent.com and PRIMEDIA have long track records of delivering a high-quality consumer and client experience in the marketplace.”

    “We are excited to be joining PRIMEDIA, a leading vertical search company in the apartment and rental housing sector,” said Rent.com GM Bill McKnight. “Rent.com fits in nicely with PRIMEDIA’s mission of being the go-to resource to help people find the perfect place to live.”

    Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed.

  • Google Docs Getting Google Search Spell Check

    Google Search has a pretty impressive spell check in place that lets you know if you’ve spelled a word wrong and gives you suggestions as to what word you might have been wanting to spell. Turns out the guys that run Google Docs thought this was pretty cool too as they’re bringing it to Docs.

    Yew Jin Lim, a software engineer with Google, penned a piece today on the Docs Blog about his team bringing search spell check to Google Docs. The key advantage here is that the spell check in Google Docs will no longer rely on a dictionary for the words you spell. Like Google Search, Docs spell check will now adapt with the Web.

    Lim shows off a few pretty impressive examples of Google’s new spell check. The first shows him typing in “Icland is an icland.” As I typed that into my text editor, both instances of “icland” are underlined and the spell check gives me three choices – Iceland, inland and island. Google claims that their spell check is contextual and once it knows that the first word is Iceland, it will correct the second “icland” to “island.”

    It will also fix that little problem of people using the wrong, but properly spelled, word. Lim uses the example of “Let’s meat tomorrow morning for coffee.” He says that Google’s spell check will correct the “meat” to “meet” based on context.

    Google is also taking into account the fact that the Web is constantly evolving and making up new words. If the word becomes popular enough, it will be added to the spell checker. Lim uses the example of Skrillex being included as a word now in Google Docs.

    Google Docs Getting Google Search Spell Check

    The new spell check system is available right now for Google Docs and presentations in English. They are hoping to roll out the new system to other languages soon.

    As a writer, this makes me excited. Having a constantly evolving spell check would solve a lot of the problems current spell checks have, especially those that automatically change the word on you.

  • Amelia Earhart: Titanic Discoverer On Board For New Search

    Amelia Earhart: Titanic Discoverer On Board For New Search

    After she disappeared without a trace with her navigator, Fred Noonan on July 2, 1937, Amelia Earhart has captured the fascination of millions as the mystery of what happened to her–and her plane–remain shrouded in shadows. Several extensive searches on her behalf have revealed next to nothing, despite the invention of new technology in the past 75 years to support them.

    A new search mission could change all that.

    A group of historians and scientists from The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery want to launch a new search for the wreckage of Earhart’s plane in the waters off the island Nikumaroro–what is now the Pacific nation of Kiribati–and they have the full support of Hillary Clinton and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The search will be advised by oceanographer Robert Ballard, who discovered the Titanic wreckage.

    Previous search groups believed that Earhart crashed into the ocean, but the IGHAR believes she may have landed on a reef and actually survived there with Noonan for a short time. If this were true, the plane would have been washed off the reef by the tide, meaning it could be sitting in the deep waters nearby after all this time, just waiting to be discovered.

    In previous visits to the island, the group has recovered artifacts that could have belonged to Earhart and Noonan which suggest they might have lived for days or weeks. And after a new analysis of a photo from October of 1937, which the scientists believe show a strut and wheel from a Lockheed Electra–the same model of airplane that Earhart flew–sticking out of the water, they believe they’ve zeroed in on the correct location. Ballard said the photo has helped narrow the search area from thousands of miles to a more manageable size.

    “If you ever want a case of finding a needle in a haystack, this is at the top of the list,” he said.

    Ballard and his team are hoping their theories will at least shed a little more light on what happened during the last hours of Earhart and Noonan’s life. Certainly it will be heartbreaking to find out they survived the crash only to perish alone on an island. But the executive director of the group, Ric Gillespie, says he isn’t concerned with the final outcome as much as how they get there.

    “The most important thing is not whether we find the ultimate answer or what we find, it is the way we look,” he said. “We see this opportunity to explore … the last great American mystery of the 20th century as a vehicle for demonstrating how to go about figuring out what is true.”

    The search will begin during the last week of July and will be filmed for a documentary to air on the Discovery Channel.

    Secretary of State Clinton names Earhart as an inspiration to a nation which was struggling to pull itself out of the Great Depression and says she not only gave people hope, she “inspired them to dream bigger and bolder”. She gave the explorers these final words of wisdom:

    “Even if you do not find what you seek, there is great honor and possibility in the search itself,” she said. “So, like our lost heroine, you will all carry our hopes … We are excited and looking forward to hear about your own great adventure.”

    The public seems intrigued by the opportunity to begin a new search.

    SO COOL. the search for amelia earhart’s plane being renewed this summer (i’m mildly obsessed with amelia earhart) http://t.co/3gqzl3Xv(image) 1 minute ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Anyone else intrigued by the possibility of finding Earhart’s remains? http://t.co/66Hxi6wg(image) 5 minutes ago via Twitter for Mac ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    This would be so cool if true! Investigators say they’ve found key clue to fate of Amelia Earhart http://t.co/3vA4J10U via @cnn(image) 7 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

  • TSA Searches Wheelchair Bound Child

    This three-year-old boy on is way to Disneyland is treated like a suspected terrorist as TSA personel pat him down and swab his wheelchair for explosive residue. The child is taken to a sequestered area to undergo rigorous inspection by the TSA staff.

    His parents and family members are forced to look on as the child trembles with fear. They are instructed that they cannot come in contact with the boy during the process, making it impossible to console him. His sister rushes over to pat him on the head, seeing that her brother is visible shaken.

    His siblings ask if he is okay, and the boy cries for his mother when the TSA agent says he has to swab his cast and wheelchair. His father is livid.

    This is just the latest in a long list of terrifying and humiliating experiences Americans are forced to go through every day for the sake of “safety.” Here is a video from Ms. USA 2003, who claims she was molested during one of her frequent flights. She is now forced to chose between the body scanning machine, which she thinks may be dangerous, or being molested.

    This cancer survivor, and flight attendant, was forced to remove her breast implant during what she discribes as an aggressive and humiliating search. She opted out of the full body scan to avoid additional radiation after recently undergoing therapy. As a result, she had her breasts groped by two women in a private room.

    This woman becomes hysterical when she shouts that she is being molested. The TSA agents then say the woman’s son cannot film the process.

    Here TSA agents pat down a nine year old…

    Just search “TSA” on YouTube to view many more videos.

    TSA has created an atmosphere of fear & meek subservience in our airports that smacks of Soviet bureaucratic bullying #RonPaul #OWS(image) 1 hour ago via Paulinator ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Now, for $100, you can “Precheck” through the process and avoid the pat-downs altogether. Now you can pay them not to fondle you, so that’s a plus.

    Pay the TSA $100 and Bypass Airport Security http://t.co/SNAFC5QX(image) 3 days ago via slashdotbot ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Just watched #TSA pat down a four year old handicapped girl. #wtfmate(image) 6 days ago via Twitter for iPhone ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    South Park Takes on The TSA In Season Premiere – http://t.co/UdukMloN(image) 6 days ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    RT @YesBiscuit: Kid was drinking from al Qaeda sippy cup! RT @msnbc: TSA searches toddler in wheelchair for explosives http://t.co/1kEZZm8b(image) 4 minutes ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

  • Is Linking Something That You Should Have To Pay For?

    Should you have to pay to link? Sadly, it’s a question we keep having to ask, because organizations and lawmakers keep giving us reason to. If you’re a longtime reader, you probably already know my stance on this: the web is based on pages freely linking to each other, and when barriers are set up that impede that, it makes for a broken web.

    Should any person, organization or aggregation service have to pay to link to content for any reason? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    In October, we ran an article with the very title: “Should You Have To Pay To Link?” Back then, it was about Central European News (CEN), a media organization that provides news, images, research, etc. to various media outlets, for money. CEN had sent payment invoices to The Huffington Post, simply because the site was linking to sources (such as The Daily Mail), which had paid for CEN’s content.

    A couple years ago, there was the whole thing with News Corp. blocking search engine/news aggregator NewsNow.co.uk from using/linking to its content. NewsNow founder Struan Bartlett had this to say at the time:

    It also led to the creation of the “Right To Link campaign“.

    A more recent example of some interesting linking policy would be this one from Lowe’s. They require sites that link to Lowes.com (I’m not sure what the legal grounds here are) to fill out a form and get permission first. This is done by fax. Yes, fax.

    The latest incident comes in the form of proposed legislation from German lawmakers, who reportedly seek to enable content creators to charge aggregation services for using snippets, for as long as lone year. The Register points to an official document about the proposed law (in German).

    It’s unclear whether we’re only talking about the actual snippets, or if that includes the titles. According to the Register’s report, aggregators may be forced to pay license fees, but if if the titles (which are essentially links), aren’t included, aggregators should be able to display titles/links without snippets, without having to pay. If such a law goes into effect, it would probably make more sense to do this, for most aggregation services, though user experience could be damaged.

    Of course, there’s one news aggregation service that we know is all about user experience (at least at the PR level) – Google (and Google News). Would Google pay to provide snippets? If titles/links are included, that’s a whole different ballgame, and in fact is really where the bulk of this threat to the web comes in.

    If we’re talking about titles, which are essentially links, we’re talking about having to pay to link to something. Even if this is only at a news aggregation service level, it’s a dangerous precedent to set, given that the web at large is based on linking. There are no clear lines when you’re talking about the subject of news aggregation – particularly in the age of user-generated content and social media. I mean, what if you create a Twitter list of accounts from news agencies, and share that with your friends, for example?

    For that matter, the lines between what should actually be considered a news source are pretty gray too, when you’re talking about blogs, social media and citizen journalism. Laws like this would have to be governed by interpretation, and any interpretation – right or wrong – could have tremendous effects on the web, and really, society.

    And let’s not forget, that while a law may be designed to govern the people and companies of a country, the web is worldwide. Linking knows no geographical boundaries.

    When you’re talking about how an aggregator like Google News delivers results, how is it any different than how Google itself delivers results. It’s still about snippets and links. Such government control could not only jeopardize current news aggregation practices, but how search, as we know it, works.

    Matthew Ingram, who writes for GigaOm these days writes a lot about this kind of stuff, and often makes great points about the state of journalism, and the whole citizen journalism/traditional media debate. As he presents it, aggregation and curation are synonyms, for all intents and purposes, and I agree. But curation can not only come from a system like Google News or a Techmeme. It can come from a news publication itself. It can come from a single person using any publishing format on the web. That means it could be a blog, a Google+ account, a Twitter account, a Twitter list, a Facebook account or whatever. Facebook even has a new interest lists feature.

    The point is, it’s all about the following you have, as to how much that contributes to content being consumed by its audience.

    So laws like this could jeopardize how we use social media too. But more than that – they could jeopardize how people use the web. It’s why the publishing world wants the paid app model (like The Daily) to succeed so well, but that model will never pan out to its full potential as long as that pesky web is around – a tap away via your phone or tablet’s browser. Perhaps news organizations should start lobbying for the death of the web browser. That would go over well.

    Links are the web. The web is links. Links are what keeps the web alive, and are the reason we have not all been completely consumed into closed app ecosystems (though we certainly spend more of our time there than ever).

    One thing that continues to baffle me, is that so many publishers and news organizations are still so opposed to how the web works. Links gain you more exposure. There are legitimate points on the other side of the argument, but the fact is that links give more people more opportunities to read your content, and if they’re not reading your content, they’re just going to read someone else’s – someone that has figured out a better way to monetize their content – perhaps someone that doen’t care about monetizing their content. Regardless, it’s not benefiting you.

    Of course, all efforts to see “aggregators” paying to link aren’t being driven by governments. News organizations (The AP, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gazzette, McClatchy, and numerous others) have banded together to form NewsRight, a collaboration designed to find ways of getting aggregators to pay. I haven’t heard a lot of success stories about that one yet.

    Do you think news organizations should be charging “aggregators” for linking? Even snippets? Let us know what you think.

    By the way, if you’re a content creator, curator or aggregator, and you feel your audience is or could be interested in this topic, please feel free to link to this article. As a bonus, we’ll even let you throw in a snippet.

  • Lexmark Acquires Brainware Parent BDGB Enterprise

    Lexmark announced that it has acquired BDGB Enterprise, a software company based in Luxembourg, which includes Brainware, a U.S. subsidiary. The price tag: $148 million.

    Brainware, which provides data capture and enterprise search solutions, will become part of Lexmark’s Perceptive Software business unit. Brainware CEO Carl Mergele will stay with the company, and report to Scott Coons, Perceptive Software’s president and CEO and Lexmark vice president.

    “Having already been partners with Perceptive Software and powering the IntelliCapture solution, we know that joining our technologies is game changing for our customers,” said Mergele. “Becoming part of Perceptive Software, known for delivering solutions that bring rapid value to customers, allows Brainware to continue doing what it does best.”

    “Brainware’s sophisticated technology brings a powerful set of capabilities that further round out our process and content management offerings, and are especially appealing to large enterprises,” said Coons. “Many of our customers use our technology to manage very high volumes of content. Brainware’s proven accuracy rate in these environments gives our customers an even greater ability to drive cost out of their business and realize an enhanced return on investment from their core business applications.”

    “With the acquisition of Brainware, Lexmark is further strengthening and differentiating our industry-leading managed print services offerings and our end-to-end business process solutions,” said Lexmark CEO Paul Rooke. “Brainware’s innovative intelligent data capture technology will be attractive to our customers across the globe.”

    Brainware has offices in the U.S., U.K., Switzerland and Germany.

  • IE Market Share Does Well With Chrome Penalized

    About a month ago, we reported that Chrome’s share of the web browser market had fallen, in a rather unexpected turn of events. This was based on data from Net Applications, which attributed the loss to the penalty Google placed on it after a paid link scandal. Long story short, Google (which blamed its marketing firm) was caught with sponsored links on some blog posts about Chrome.

    On January 3, Google’s Matt Cutts wrote on Google+:

    We did find one sponsored post that linked to www.google.com/chrome in a way that flowed PageRank. Even though the intent of the campaign was to get people to watch videos–not link to Google–and even though we only found a single sponsored post that actually linked to Google’s Chrome page and passed PageRank, that’s still a violation of our quality guidelines, which you can find at http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769#3.

    In response, the webspam team has taken manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome for at least 60 days. After that, someone on the Chrome side can submit a reconsideration request documenting their clean-up just like any other company would. During the 60 days, the PageRank of www.google.com/chrome will also be lowered to reflect the fact that we also won’t trust outgoing links from that page.

    Microsoft put out a new blog post looking at browser share (but more specifically, share on Windows 7, which it considers its core metric for Internet Explorer). Their data also comes from Net Applications. IE market share looks pretty good, as you can see:

    Browser Market Share for Windows 7

    “In line with recent months, we’re pleased to report that IE9 growth on Windows 7 continues, passing 30% worldwide as of the end of February,” writes Microsoft’s Roger Capriotti. “The data is particularly encouraging for users and developers in the US where IE9 is over 40% usage share at the end February.”

    Tomorrow would actually be 60 days from when Cutts posted that, so it will be interesting to see if Chrome picks up again following the lifting of the penalty.

    Google has certainly not slowed down on Chrome feature releases in the time it’s been penalized. Since then, the browser has gotten updates for better malware protection, speed, graphics, Instant Pages, and offline Gmail. Chrome for Android was also revealed.

  • Roy Bostock To Step Down As Yahoo’s Chairman Of The Board

    Roy Bostock To Step Down As Yahoo’s Chairman Of The Board

    Yahoo’s been going through a lot of changes as a company, and that will continue in the near term, as Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board, Roy Bostock, announced today that he, along with three other board members have “volunteered” not to stand for re-election at the next shareholders meeting.

    The other three would be: Vyomesh Joshi, Arthur Kern and Gary Wilson.

    The news was announced in a letter from Bostock to shareholders, which recaps three phases of the changes at Yahoo: the new CEO, a strategic review of the business and the board changes.

    Co-founder and former CEO Jerry Yang, of course, left all positions, including his board positions (including Yahoo Japan and Alibaba), last month.

    Bostock has served as Chairman of the Board since January 2008. He’s been a member of the board since 2003.

    Below is Bostock’s etter in its entirety:

    Dear Fellow Shareholders:

    I write today to update you on the actions the Yahoo! board has taken, and the actions it is pursuing, to increase shareholder value and position the Company for growth. These actions result from a process I initiated about six months ago in a special meeting of the independent directors in which we analyzed the reasons why Yahoo! was not meeting either our own expectations or those of our shareholders.

    The board decided then to move aggressively on three fronts to position Yahoo! for future success: one, we initiated a search for a new Chief Executive Officer with a vision and set of skills to lead Yahoo! into the future; two, we undertook a comprehensive strategic and structural review of the business; and three, we decided to assess the composition of the Company’s board of directors relative to its ability to enhance the prospects for Yahoo!’s future success. We have made progress on all three fronts.

    First, and most importantly, we have appointed Scott Thompson as CEO to lead our company. Scott is a capable and dynamic leader who brings the experience and expertise the Company needs to achieve robust growth and success in the marketplace. Over the coming months and years, Scott will lead an outstanding team of Yahoos to deliver engaging user experiences driven by innovative products.

    Second, we have made significant progress on the comprehensive strategic review which is overseen by the board’s Transactions and Strategic Planning Committee, chaired by director Brad Smith, the CEO of Intuit. The Committee’s guiding principle has been to assess alternatives which would increase value for all Yahoo! shareholders, and the Committee has been open to any transaction or initiative that would serve this objective.

    As part of this review, we have pursued a wide range of discussions with potential partners. We have engaged with potential investors and reviewed proposals concerning an equity investment in the Company, although at this time there have not been any proposals which have been deemed by the Committee to be attractive to our shareholders. We are also in active discussions with our partners in Asia regarding the possibility of restructuring our holdings in Alibaba Group and Yahoo! Japan. The complexity and unique nature of these transactions is significant. While we continue to devote significant resources to these discussions, we are not in a position at this time to provide further detail or to provide assurance that any transaction will be achieved.

    Finally, the board has concluded that in order to accelerate the Company’s transformation, the combination of a new Chief Executive Officer with an enhanced team of independent directors would provide Yahoo! with the expertise and perspectives necessary to drive innovation and growth going forward. Therefore, Mr. Joshi, Mr. Kern, Mr. Wilson and I have volunteered not to stand for re-election at the next shareholders’ meeting.

    Furthermore, the board today elected two highly qualified independent directors, Alfred Amoroso and Maynard Webb, Jr. Mr. Amoroso served as President and CEO of Rovi Corporation until December 2011 and, among other positions, had previously served as the President, CEO and Vice Chairman of META Group, Inc., the President and CEO of CrossWorlds Software, Inc. and as a member of the world-wide management committee of IBM Corporation. Mr. Webb, the Chairman of LiveOps, Inc., served as that company’s CEO until July 2011. Prior to that, Mr. Webb was Chief Operating Officer of eBay and Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer for Gateway, Inc., in addition to management, leadership and board positions at several other companies spanning his 30-year career.

    The board continues its search for additional independent directors. This search is being led by director Patti Hart, CEO of International Game Technology, Inc., who chairs our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. We anticipate announcing additional directors to round out the board as soon as this process concludes.

    Separately, as previously announced, Jerry Yang has resigned from the board of directors and other positions within the Company to pursue his many interests outside of Yahoo!. Working with Jerry was always a delight. He is a visionary and a pioneer who contributed enormously to Yahoo! since he co-founded the Company in 1995. He will be missed. The board thanks him deeply for his service and commitment to the Company.

    Thus, following this year’s Annual Meeting a majority of Yahoo!’s directors will be new to the board this year, and all directors will have joined the board since 2010. We believe that this reconfigured board, with a fresh set of perspectives and diverse set of skills, will enable the Company to move forward even more aggressively.

    It has always been a privilege for me to serve as Chairman of Yahoo!. The employees of Yahoo! remain the heart, soul, and future of the company. And with Scott Thompson leading them, they are the reason why I believe Yahoo! will create significant shareholder value over the coming years.

    In September, this board moved proactively and decisively to improve the performance of the Company for the benefit of its shareholders. These actions could not have been accomplished without the support and active participation of each director on the board. For that, I thank them. And I thank them for the knowledge, expertise, talents and commitment they have brought to Yahoo!. We all take pride in the fact that we are positioning Yahoo! for success in the future. Yahoo! is an incredibly strong brand with formidable assets. I have every expectation that under Scott’s leadership, working together with the reconstituted board, the Company will thrive for many years to come.

    Sincerely,

    Roy Bostock
    Chairman of the Board

  • Chrome Market Share Down Following PageRank Penalty

    This is some unexpected news. Chrome’s market share has actually fallen? That’s the case according to new data from Net Applications.

    The firm attributes the loss in Chrome market share to the penalty Google placed on it after the the whole paid post controversy last month. Google reduced the PageRank of the Chrome home page after it was found to be in violation of the company’s own webmaster guidelines, and as a result no longer appears on the first page in a variety of popular browser related searches.

    It’s a bit hard to fathom that this could have such a major impact, but it’s at least one thing to take into consideration. It will be interesting to see how the market share looks next month, and after the Chrome page gets its PageRank back. Google said the PR would be lowered for a period of at least 60 days.

    Also in January, Internet Explorer gained 1.1% and Firefox dropped 1%.

  • Yahoo Mobile Apps Wave Goodbye

    Yahoo announced that it will no longer be supporting a number of its mobile apps. These include: Yahoo Meme (iPad/iPhone), Yahoo Mim (iPad), Yahoo Answers (Android), Yahoo AppSpot (Android/iPhone), Yahoo Deals (iPhone), Yahoo Finance (Blackberry), Yahoo Movies (Android), Yahoo News (Android), Yahoo Shopping (iPhone) and Yahoo Sketch-a-search (iPad and iPhone).

    “Our plan is to keep moving, to keep innovating, and to continuously measure and scrutinize what’s working and what isn’t – so we can make room for great new products,” said the Yahoo Mobile team in a blog post.

    “We’re moving forward with a ‘mobile first’ mindset,” the team said. “You can expect to see more new Yahoo! mobile products in 2012, especially in areas ripe for innovation that build on Yahoo!’s strengths, such as companion experiences for TV like IntoNow, new ways to experience personalized media like Livestand, and some of our most popular and useful mobile apps like Yahoo! Mail, Messenger, Sportacular and Flickr, which are already being used by millions of people around the world. And we’ll be building these experiences with disruptive technology that’s going to change the mobile game well beyond Yahoo!.”

    It’s worth noting that some features of some of the apps that are going away are being integrated into other Yahoo experiences. Features from AppSpot and Sketch-A-Search, for example, are being integrated into the Yahoo Search App.

    It looks like the company is cleaning house with its new CEO on board.

    Will you miss any of the apps that have been shut down?

  • Google Privacy: “The Real Story”

    I don’t think there’s really any new information here, but Google has put up a post on its Public Policy blog called “Setting the record straight about our privacy policy changes” aiming to “clear up some of the misconceptions” about its privacy policies that “first appeared in the Washington Post”.

    Here’s a bullet list Google policy manager Betsy Masiello includes in the post under the heading “Here’s the real story”:

    • You still have choice and control. You don’t need to log in to use many of our services, including Search, Maps and YouTube. If you are logged in, you can still edit or turn off your Search history, switch Gmail chat to “off the record,” control the way Google tailors ads to your interests, use Incognito mode on Chrome, or use any of the other privacy tools we offer.
    • We’re not collecting more data about you. Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google — whichever products or services you use. This is something we have already been doing for a long time.
    • We’re making things simpler and we’re trying to be upfront about it. Period.
    • You can use as much or as little of Google as you want. For example, you can have a Google Account and choose to use Gmail, but not use Google+. Or you could keep your data separate with different accounts — for example, one for YouTube and another for Gmail.

    For more on the privacy policies, and the controversy they’ve created, read here.

    As previously reported, Google has been sending users emails about the policy update:

    Google Privacy Changes