The cost per click payout method of Google AdSense has been controversial since the time it was invented. There has always been the possibility of manipulation, which translated to advertisers paying more for worthless ads. Click Fraud, as they call it. Advertisers just end up wasting their money on fools who click on their own ads for the sole purpose of generating a payout.

But of course, Google is smarter than the rest of us, right? They banned such curiosity clicks from their terms of service, and created a method to detect whether an account’s click ratio is within acceptable limits. But then the unscrupulous AdSense publishers worked around this by hiring click monkeys to click on ads randomly, and still maintaining the click to page-view ratio. This was mostly from overseas (where labor is cheap). So Google invented the smart pricing. Clicks cost more if they originated from higher-income countries, or countries where the advertiser’s product is actually sold.

But you still can’t get stop wasting money. That’s because even if those clicks are from legitimate users–even your actual market–all they ever do is visit your site. And what happens next is up to them. Even if the conversion rate was zero percent (meaning no one actually buys your product or service), you still end up paying for the click.

Google is exploring a better system: cost per action. Similar to how affiliate marketing schemes pay out publishers. You only pay when people actually do something, like buy a product or sign up for a newsletter, or give you their contact info.

Even the New York Times gave it some attention lately.

Under the “cost per action” system, advertisers decide what they are willing to pay for a specific action, like a purchase or a software download. Armed with that information, Web site publishers then choose whether to run a specific ad or group of ads on their sites.

Many advertisers find cost-per-action appealing, as it greatly reduces their risk, since they are not charged for ads that are ineffective. The model has long been used online by “affiliate marketing” companies like ValueClick, which have created networks of hundreds or thousands of Web sites that display small ads for e-commerce sites. The publishers are paid when they refer a user who makes a purchase.

Cost per action ads are appealing both to advertisers and publishers. Advertisers can finally get 100% (or close) conversion rate, and they won’t have to pay for wasted clicks. And if the price is right, publishers, meanwhile, would be happy to earn more from affiliate sales rather than live by with the few cents that a click can bring you.

Of course, this is still wait-and-see. The advantage of AdSense is that you don’t really have to push your advertiser’s products (in fact, it’s illegal to encourage users to click). But with the usual affiliate systems, you have incentives to push the products yourself since you don’t earn until someone actually makes a purchase. I wonder if Google’s cost per action system will allow for this.

We hope this new results-oriented Google advertising scheme works.

A question we asked before here on JOAB is whether you blog in the weekends. I’ve noticed that in a lot of blogs, even those written supposedly for profit, weekends are slow days. I’m not sure if it’s because bloggers usually write posts from their computers at work, or most go on vacations during weekends, or because no one expects much readership during these times.

However, I tend to think against putting good blogging airtime (if there is such a thing) to waste. Weekends are a great time to recap whatever relevant events that have transpired during the week. And weekends are also good times to blog about what you intend to do in the coming week. Sure, only a few people would get to read these during the weekend itself, but by then those readers are likely to be more relaxed (free from the killer work-related stress). And this way they might better appreciate whatever you write, and perhaps even pitch in a comment or two.

If weekend blogging is too much effort for you, then you might want to consider these options.

1. Write posts in advance. Thursdays or Fridays–nearing that time when the workweek ends–are good times to do this.
2. Do a weekly round-up. Summarize all the relevant events and blog posts for that week, and link to these posts with some afterthoughts.
3. Write something off-topic. It’s the weekend, after all. If your blog is focused on a single niche, maybe you can write something off-topic or at least mildly related for a change.
4. Put up a link-blog. If you would rather not link to your own olders posts, then link elsewhere, with only minimal commentary for each link.

Blogging is an anytime activity, in my opinion. You shouldn’t let the fact that it’s a weekend hinder you from writing your thoughts.

Here’s looking forward to a great weekend!

So there’s the elusive question. Who’s the world’s first ever blogger. A CNet article discusses how ten years ago, the concept of blogs was born, and who the people involved were.

Was the first blogger the irascible Dave Winer? The iconoclastic Jorn Barger? Or was the first blogger really Justin Hall, a Web diarist and online gaming expert whom The New York Times Magazine once called the “founding father of personal blogging”?

Or did all three merely make incremental improvements on earlier proto-blogs? The answer is most likely “yes” to all of the above. In truth, awarding the title “first blogger” is more than a little tricky because the definitions of blog and blogger are slippery. Any definition should probably include posts sorted by date, with the newest posts at the top and the rest archived for future use (criteria that would eliminate the Drudge Report, for instance).

CNet points out, quite correctly, that the main problem here is firstly how to define the concept of blogging. Is it the format, meaning reverse-chronological updates? Or is it the intent, meaning to share opinion or stories? Or is it the method of publication? The use of hyperlinking to relevant external sites? Or is it the presence of reader comments?

However you would define the concept of the Web Log, it boils down to one thing: do we really need to know who the first ever blogger was? I think it would be nearly impossible to determine that. And if ever you were to single out someone that fits the title, you’d be sure to have someone contest that claim.

I tend to think that it’s not an issue of who the first blogger was. It’s not a question of who was there first, but I think what’s more important is identifying the people who have made significant contributions that have now shaped what blogging is, and that have raised blogging to a higher level and importance to the eyes of the rest of the world.

Surprising news via cellphone9. Apple has filed a patent for the lanyard.

Apple is starting it. They filed a patent for the oh so typical lanyard you string around your neck to hang the iPod to make it do more things. Like flash lights to the beat of your heart when jogging or interface with other wireless devices. The future of the lanyard is now!

Okay, I guess it’s not really your typical lanyard that just serves the sole function of letting you strap your phone to your wrist or hang it around your neck. It’s more of the high-tech lanyard gadgetry, wherein you can plug in accessories and other peripherals. In short, the lanyard is a peripheral in itself–something that adds connectivity features to your device.

MacNN says it’s more than your regular strap.

Apple’s patent generally relates to lanyards for handheld electronic devices and more particularly, lanyards that incorporate electronic circuitry. Apple’s next generation of lanyards discussed in the patent go far beyond today’s designs to accommodate their upcoming iPhone and other future iterations of the iPod. In some cases, the lanyard itself will add functionality beyond those of the attached devices, such as adding telephony to any iPod, lighting effects that relate to heart rates for joggers and additional input facilitators such as buttons, touch pads or sliders.

But this is the kind of news that tends to make me critical of how far companies will go to grab the rights to a simple technology. Sure, you have to specify what exactly a technology should be and do, to qualify as a patent holder. Then if someone else wants to do something exactly like how you do it, he must pay royalties.

Of course, there are arguments for and against patenting technologies. And this pretty much centers on innovation. Some would say that patents are stifling to innovation since it becomes costly to develop products based on another entity’s patents, since you have to pay licensing fees or royalties. Others say that patents encourage innovation, since an inventor can potentially earn from whatever new technology he invents or designs.

It’s the same double-edged sword for consumers. We’re happy because companies like Apple can invent the iPod, the Mac and the iPhone–all based on several technologies that they own the rights to, or have paid licensing fees for. But then the other side of the coin is that we consumers also have to shoulder part of the cost of licensing technologies, as part of the retail price.

So Apple reinvented

the wheel

the lanyard. Some day these people will think of a way to plug in the lanyard directly to a port at the back of our heads so we can hardline music to our brains!

There has been much talk about disclosure policies lately, especially with how some marketing groups have criticized pay per post and similar types of blog monetization schemes. For instance, do you know that PayPerPost owns disclosure.org? So they do encourage disclosure, but then it seems like a double standard with how they encourage disclosure, but covertly encourage people to use an automatic disclosure policy generator that they themselves own.

At any rate, here’s a funny thing I noticed surfing Andy Beard’s blog. He would sometimes include the following note on his posts, whenever he makes statements with potentially legal implications.

• I am not a lawyer, and the wording I have used was not written by a lawyer
• You should check with your legal consultant and this is provided for entertainment purposes only

Now I don’t think this would exactly turn away the legal types from actually dissecting your blog and looking for things they can use against you. But for the rest of us unlearned in the legal arts, this serves to be useful. Or at least quite humorous. This way, no one will blame you if they screw up or do something really stupid with the post you’ve just published.

It’s like saying I will not be held liable for any stupid stuff you may do as a result of reading my blog.

So there. Let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer, and if you get into hot water as a result of reading JOAB, or doing stuff that we recommended here on JOAB, it’s not our fault.

I didn’t notice this until I checked out the Blogging Times just recently. It seems the Times is sporting an even newer look. And pretty much everything else has changed, too.

Scandalicious headlines? Check. Scandalicious images? Check. Looks like everything’s in place. What used to be the Blogging Times has turned itself into an online tabloid of sorts. Gone is the newsy, level-headed analysis by its former writers. Now it’s all just talk and less sense.

But then again, the copyright statement says it all:

The Blogging Times is a news blog. Copyright © The Blogging Times, All Rights Reserved.

A news blog, eh? Seriously?

Oh, who am I to nitpick? Maybe the Blogging Times has become too strong for my taste. JOAB is getting softer as the days go by, and pretty soon we’d probably be the same boring old stuff, just like 99% of the blogs out there. Count on the Blogging Times to try to grab attention while it still can.

I wonder what erstwhile TBT owner and editor Minic Rivera is thinking.

I’ve always thought that for as long as there are social news sites, there will be people who will use these to their advantage. Some for profit, some for link currency, and some even for malicious intentions.

One such social news site is HUGG, a DIGG clone created by environmentally-conscious design firm Treehugger, but focusing on environmental news and awareness. Just recently, the issue of Hugg being gamed came into light.

I think it’s interesting with all the green enthusiasts on this site that the gaming is actually perpetuating a system of green washing and frivolity. I love Hugg, don’t get me wrong, but I’ve seen some killer stories stuck at 2 Huggs and I’ve seen some terrible stuff promoted to 6 in a matter of hours. Why? Here’s what you do to game hugg: First you become friends with a ton of other green bloggers. When they post on hugg, you hugg. When you post on hugg, they hugg. Scratch my back. If you run a group blog, you post all your website’s stories on hugg, the good ones and the bad, and the whole team of writers huggs that story. It goes to the top. Good job. You got traffic from that one. I hope you enjoy the adsense check, because it’s greenwashing. These weird cliques and systems of hugging and scratching backs and team huggings is leading to bad news getting promoted.

The point being made by the author is that the site is supposed to be about environmental news, but a lot of irrelevant–and probably useless–stories are getting the limelight instead. This is because of the friends system currently in place in the social network. Friends will “Hugg” items that are submitted by their friends, whether or not these are considered relevant to the environment niche.

So this means social news sites, no matter how noble the intention, nor how socially conscious the niche, are very prone to manipulation. Or at the very least, they don’t do their job very well. The system is supposed to reflect information that’s relevant to the group of people the site caters to. But then since that group consists of people who aren’t really savvy about selecting the relevant news, then the system fails.

Social networks are just as good as the community that makes up its members.

[via scienceblogs]

The term metrosexual was dubbed word of the year for 2003.

Metrosexuality is the trait of an urbane man who has a strong aesthetic sense and spends a substantial amount of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle. Though the term has undergone a transformation from its original meaning (a heterosexual man who appeared or acted as if he were homosexual), current trends have seen the metrosexual label placed upon masculinity’s embracing of practices usually perceived to be feminine, rather than those specifically associated with the homosexual. Debate surrounds the term’s use as a theoretical signifier of gender deconstruction and its associations with consumerism. Current gender scholars view metrosexuality as representative of the embracing of relational understanding in addition to its lifestyle and aesthetic implications.

Frankly, I think this is bollocks–just some excuse for men to justify wearing makeup and getting pedicures, and crying out their eyes in public. But then society has changed, hasn’t it? And so has the view of masculinity as having to be about gruff, strong-egoed individuals.

Now the term technosexual is coming into fashion. Oh, please. I think I’m seeing a trend here. Next time, (insert favorite word here)-sexual will be in fashion.

They’re more of a marketing term rather than something that really reflects something prevalent in society. So what if men have been touching on their emotional sides and trying to keep a bit neater in appearance? It happens, but you don’t necessarily have to give it a name!

But then if there’s money being made from such marketing hype, then these people must be serious. For one, Calvin Klein is heavily banking on the techosexual for marketing its latest fragrance line, the in2u. From Valleywag:

In 2008, the marketing campaign for the fashion label’s new scent, CK in2u, borrows the language of bloggers, teen texters and Myspace exhibitionists. What better metaphor for the evolution of blogging: first, an exercise in self-mockery; then, irresistible media catnip; and, within a decade, inevitably, a zeitgeist to be bottled, literally, and marketed to the masses.

(I’m not one to rely on Valleywag for useful information, but then who does?)

Even the New York Times featured commentary on the CK ads (via complex.com)

A typical line from the press materials for CK in2u goes like this: “She likes how he blogs, her texts turn him on. It’s intense. For right now.”

So if you’re a blogger, or really into other things technology, you’re a target for marketeers. They know technology excites you, and that includes gadgets, electronics, autos, and even apparel and accessories. But then again, this kind of marketing is more of hype rather than lasting buzz. What happens when bloggin and tech are no longer in the limelight?

Image: Jason Kottke posing in front of a CK one ad, circa 1998

I’m not much of a fan of social networking (it shows, doesn’t it?), but since it’s a very useful tool these days, it has come to be a necessity for the connected individual. And I’m not talking about personal networks only, but also social networks that focus on professionals and more serious stuff.

However, I’m not denying that social networks that cater to personal matters are big. And for these, it’s mostly the younger demographic that perhaps comprises bulk of the membership. Considering that we old people are busier with real world matters like work, moneymaking and making our spouses happy, it’s our kids and their friends who love to play around with MySpace, Friendster, and other social networks out there.

If you have kids, better make sure they’re safe. Here are some useful tips for social network safety that joemanna.com shares. In a nutshell, it lists what you have to do to avoid being victimized by online predators and scammers. It’s important to keep one’s privacy while online, and this would usually entail being very selective with online “friends,” and being mindful of the information that you might disclose online.

And then there are those people who are probably mature enough, but who aren’t really familiar with the workings of the Internet (especially the dangers). These are the same people who reply to 419 scams, give their passwords to phishers and order fake viagra online. They might also have MySpace profiles, and therefore need this advice, too.

Be careful — Social Networking is a double-edged sword. It’s okay to have fun and connect with other people on social networks, but just be alert to the fact that criminals may prey on others. Take precautions to prevent possible negative outcomes.

David Krug alerts us to yet another social network on the rise (or otherwise?).

A Social Network That Won’t Work?

Please don’t call me a chauvinist, but would you female athletes out there really participate in a social network called Takkle, put together by Tampax? There are some social networks that we just don’t need. Can you imagine one by some company that offers a jock itch product? Do you want to be reminded, each time you visit?

From Takkle’s about page, Takkle is supposed to be a network for athletes, where they can both connect with fellow athletes and show off their expertise to potential employers or colleges/universities.

TAKKLE was developed to help high school athletes succeed. Create your own profile, post your stats, show off your favorite photos and videos, and instantly look up info on opposing teams and rivals. After you fill out your information you can invite friends, students, teammates, coaches, family and friends to join.

Athletes can use TAKKLE to check in with your favorite groups, check your practice schedule, and post your best photos/videos. TAKKLE. is your place to shine. The site gives you the ability to compare your rankings with kids across the country, watch video footage of everyone’s best moves, and connect with other players.

Now why shouldn’t this work? There are probably many reasons why naysayers tell you that social networks like Takkle are doomed to failure. One is that there is already a lot of social networking sites that cater to sports-minded people. Mashable mentions them here. Another is that the site is sponsored by a corporate entity–in Takkle’s case, Tampax–and would therefore probably not subscribe much to the ideals of all things Web 2.0. (But then again, successful web app models are initially independent, and then later on backed by moneyed entities.) And then there are already a plethora of tools that people can use to collaborate and coordinate activities (take Google Calendar, for instance). So why should athletes and coaches use such a site like Takkle for these instead?

But here’s one reason I think sites like Takkle are cool. It’s great to have networks focused on a single niche. Whether it’s based on location, school, favorites, and the like, it’s always good to know people in your network are those whom you share the same interests with, and not just the whole shebang of everyone (including the stalkers, kidnappers and serial killers).

Big social networks are, well, big because anyone can be part of the game. But smaller ones that focus on single shared interests do have a place in this world. Again, I mention that social media only mirrors how “social” society is. And in real life, there always is room for exclusivity.

Oh, here’s an interesting quip from Mashable’s Pete Cashmore.

There are many, many jokes I could have uh…inserted…into this post, but we’re not doing any Tampax gags and that’s the end of it. Period.