The page at Google which describes this service offering says the following

Google is building a new panel to learn more about how everyday people use the Internet.

The new project is called Screenwise. As a panelist, you’ll add a browser extension that will share with Google the sites you visit and how you use them. What we learn from you, and others like you, will help us improve Google products and services and make a better online experience for everyone.

Wait, did I read that correctly? Google wants to learn more about how everyday people use the Internet? Wait, you mean Google is not interested in the prevailing wisdom that everyone is some Internet power user and sits around all day long wondering what kind of sinister change Google will next thrust upon the poor self-important Silicon Valley hipster “regular” Internet user?

It’s about time Google acts like it is interested in the vast majority of those who use the Internet. We are constantly focusing on the uber-user of search engines and the Internet in general and, let’s face it, that’s not how most people use the search engine or the Internet in general at all. Heck, if everyone was a Scoble or (insert Internet pseudo celebrity name here) then all of these cries of “Foul!” around Google would actually make sense in the big picture.

The truth is that most people are not super users. They do not know the ins and outs of search. They are not thinking about privacy. They are simply interested in getting answers to questions. They don’t freak out every time Google makes a change. In fact, they are oblivious to the business of Google and quite happy to stay that way.

It’s about time Google offers an olive branch (although it feels the need to use Amazon gift cards as bait, which is just silly) to the Internet commoner. The online world has a concentration of power users that has unfair influence and sway in saying how it should all work. Google should be studying the regular Joe’s of the Internet so they can be better served in their mere mortal user of the Internet. Why? Because that’s a big number of people!

I know I am laying it on thick here but the Internet industry should do everyone a service and get over itself. There are many more people out there who are getting great benefit from the Internet as a whole without having a kitten every time Google, or any other company for that matter, does something that could further their business or, better yet, the experience of users.

In the end, marketers are trying to reach those who might end up buying their stuff as a result of their online interactions. That includes large numbers of “everyday” people. In a way, just the fact that Google uses that terminology shows just how disconnected the whole Internet business is from reality. I hope this chasm closes sooner than later.

Your take?

That’s why some research from AYTM Market Research that was passed through by eMarketer is interesting but I have some questions myself. First, look at this chart which measures people’s concerns about privacy and search.

My question is whether these questions were asked exactly like this and were there other options to this question (anyone at AYTM care to chime in?). Also, what kind of people were asked this question? Were they young? Old? Tech types? Regular Joe’s? This is important to know when we see things like this because it’s very easy to make sweeping generalizations when we see results like this.

The question I have that I would like to see asked of someone who has a regular job, isn’t knee deep in the online space for hours on end each day but still searches for information and even buys stuff online is “Are you aware that this kind of personalization goes on? And if you no but now do, do you care?” And lastly “Why do you go to Google?”. For large numbers of people that answer would be “To get answers to my questions”. Then ask “Do you care how they do it?” When most answer no you could ask “Do you really care how they do it as long as you get the information you need?” and most would answer “No”.

We are acting as if tech types and Silicon Valley folks and hangers on speak for the masses. They don’t. There are large portions of the US that buy stuff online that don’t care about any of this. As an industry it feels like we are majoring in the minors. Rather than figuring out the best way to efficiently and effectively reach target markets we get caught in the minutiae of what we deem to be important. It may be to us but when we get off our soap box there needs to be the realization that the audience we yell and scream at is limited. I know A LOT of smart people that don’t have a clue what Google does and guess what? They don’t care either.

Now for the second question from this article. How many US Internet users use Google+.

According to these findings 40% of US Internet users either use it or have an account. Really? I must really be out of the loop. Oh wait. I don’t live in the Silicon Valley. I just live in the Raleigh, NC area which is rather tech savvy as far as metro areas go and I feel VERY confident much less than 40% of the population here (at least the folks I know) have the slightest clue that Google+ even exists.

I’m not saying that this information is completely off base. In fact, much of what I refer to here is based on my observations only. We are not hiring folks to run out and gather survey data. It’s just that sometimes information seems sensationalistic in nature and our concern is that many will get a distorted view of the reality of the Internet space.

Will a study like the one mentioned above do that? Maybe, maybe not. I can say, though, that we as an industry need to be looking at the less sophisticated Internet user for cues as to what the mass market does online. To look at each other and assume that how we use the Internet is “normal” is not only arrogant, it’s pretty stupid.

Your thoughts?

Created by Kashmir Hill, Forbes.

Search used to see the same numbers but as shown by a report from eMarketer the days of the big, gaudy numbers are likely over and that’s fine for two reasons. First it is unrealistic to expect 30, 40, 50, 60 percent growth. It is unsustainable as more of the market gets on board. Less people not exposed means less growth. Second, there will still be growth predicted through 2016! How many industries can say that today?!

So if search spend remains strong who is likely to be happiest? Google of course. The likelihood that their dominance in the space is going to be dented is slim and, in fact, eMarketer predicts it will continue to rise.

One thing we haven’t even discussed in this is mobile. Mobile search is likely to be the ad spend and SEO game changer over the next five years. There will be plenty to do and keep track of for sure.

As Super Bowl XLVI is less than a week away, advertisers and marketers are firming up their ads that are expected to cost $3.5 – $4 million for a :30 second spot on NBC. While “Super Bowl commercials” are amongst the most exciting parts of the experience for the consumer (not the avid sports fan), marketers and advertisers should ask themselves if their commercial will effectively generate brand awareness and a purchase decision.

It seems as though Super Bowl commercials have become more of a battle of wit versus creating brand awareness. In recent years, more and more companies compete with each other and focus more on injecting humor into the ad versus focusing on making some sort of conversion. With the Super Bowl being presented online for the first time this year, perhaps advertisers should focus also on creating a viral marketing video that coincides with their super $3.5 million advertisement during the big game.

In order to do this, focus should be directed toward YouTube. Displaying a brief “sneak-peek” and heavily optimizing the video using video search engine optimization (VSEO) can increase brand awareness and give consumers something to specifically look for during commercial breaks. This may sound unfamiliar to reverse the operation, however in doing so, the ad is already in the minds of consumers. Displaying a QR code on the television ad can then generate website traffic and lead to the conversion.

Creating viral marketing videos are inexpensive and online video content is 141 times more likely than a webpage to generate a “click-through” in the search engine results pages. Given that, viral marketing videos can reach a wider audience and have a more immediate effect on generating a conversion. When a company makes a $3.5 million ad this year, it does not mean that millions of watchers are going to flock to the store or online to make a purchase. Instead, coupling a Super Bowl advertisement with an optimized viral marketing video could be this year’s most effective method of Super Bowl advertising.

The views and opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Marketing Pilgrim.

Todd Bailey is Vice President of Digital Strategy at WebiMax, a leading SEO company with 500+ clients and 150+ employees as well as Lead Contributor at SEOservices.com

The latest adjustment comes in how average search position is calculate. From the Google Webmaster Central blog we get an example of just how this is being done.

Let’s say Nick searched for [bacon] and URLs from your site appeared in positions 3, 6, and 12. Jane also searched for [bacon] and URLs from your site appeared in positions 5 and 9. Previously, we would have averaged all these positions together and shown an Average Position of 7. Going forward, we’ll only average the highest position your site appeared in for each search (3 for Nick’s search and 5 for Jane’s search), for an Average Position of 4.

We anticipate that this new method of calculation will more accurately match your expectations about how a link’s position in Google Search results should be reported.

Check out the updated Top Search Queries data in the Your site on the web section of Webmaster Tools.

The critical point to note as well is that this not impact historical data, it will be moving forward only.

Admittedly, there’s not much to see here but for folks like the readers we love here at Marketing Pilgrim, it all matters, right?

Did you know that Google is…gasp…manipulating its search results for its own benefit? No, really. Apparently, Google+ is being forced down our throats and poor, helpless companies such as Facebook and Twitter are worried YOU are not getting the best results. They’re rallying a movement not seen since Google started adding paid ads to its search results!

I’m telling you! Facebook avatars and Twitter profiles are going to be changed over this! This is an outrage, one that even Hitler’s coming out of retirement to comment on (NSFW, btw).

But, here’s the thing. This is just the same ol’, same ol’ for Google. It changes its algorithm ALL THE FREAKING TIME! It’s what search engines do. Despite what you may think, Google is not in the business to make you happy. It’s in the business to make money. Period. Oh sure, there was once a mission statement drawn up that suggested “evil” should be abolished from the web, but that was before private jets, stock options, and Wall Street.

Unlike SOPA, which arguably would have affected just about every business on the web, Google’s “Search Plus Your World” is not some piece of legislation that impacts the future of the web. No, it’s the policy of one search engine–hell bent on ramming its craptastic social network down our throats.

If you don’t like it, do something about it. Your blog post, tweet, or Facebook rant don’t count, because, quite frankly, you don’t count. At least, not on your own. Changing your Twitter picture to include “Boycott Google+” not only doesn’t count, but should result in you requiring an IQ test.

If you want Google+ out of your search engine results. CHANGE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE!

That will get Google’s attention. Nothing else. Less users, equals less searches, equals less Adwords clicks, equals less revenue. If you want to change Google, get its attention where it matters—its pocket book.

So please, the next time you complain about how bad Google’s search results have become, don’t just whine, do something. I hear Bing would be delighted to have you.

I’m open to counter-points in the comments, but play nice!

Will this ad help Bing in its battle against Google? You decide.

Here’s a quick look at the difference which won’t tell you much other than stark black and white are in at Mountain View.

Here is the company line on the changes

Hot on the heels of Android 4.0, Ice Cream Sandwich, we’ve updated Google Search for previous versions of Android: it’s all around faster, to get what you need quickly. In this version, you’ll notice:

• Faster, smoother performance, with an updated and simplified user interface.
• Suggestions for your search grouped by type, with web suggestions at the top.
• Country-specific suggestions and search results for all countries with Google domains.
• Long press to remove history items.

If you are an Android user you can use the QR code below to get the app or simply go to the Android market.

All I have to say is that it’s nice to see a search change by Google that hasn’t incited the industry high priests and priestesses to gather up their torch and pitchfork apps for their iPhones so they can complain on behalf of those who are in the business as opposed to the masses that actually use this stuff.

Here are the numbers straight from comScore:

USAToday says the jockeying for position was due to a partnership agreement between Microsoft and Yahoo that gave Microsoft the searches so Yahoo could save money.

I say, it was the Bumble that earned Bing that second place ribbon. From Black Friday on, Bing flooded the TV ad market with commercials based on Rankin-Bass’ classic retelling of Rudolph. The Bumble used Bing to find out how to be scary. Yukon searched for a hot yoga studio, and Mr. and Mrs. Claus went bubble wrap crazy.

Add to this, Bing’s advent calendar of deals and downloads and it’s easy to see why they won the battle. But what now? The Bumble has gone back to his snowy cave until next year and now Bing is the official search engine of The Sundance Film Festival. Nice, but it’s no Rudolph.

Can Bing keep the small lead they picked up in December? If it really is a product of the Yahoo partnership, then yes. If not, I’d bet the two companies continue to swap in and out of the number two spot for the rest of the year.

As for number one? It’s this search engine called Google. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

What is really happening is that people are arguing whether Google and its search function should be allowed to operate in a free market sense or should it be “confiscated” by the government through regulation etc so that it can be fair. This is just ridiculous in a supposedly free market environment. For painfully obvious reasons (i.e his own income and influence), Siegler outlines how Apple avoids this mess without ever saying what is actually taking place. That is that, Apple produces a product that people can buy into of their own free will. There is a cost to get there and a barrier to entry. It is free market.

Google on the other hand provides a critical service that would make life a bit more difficult (although not impossible since there are competitors like Bing etc which people also like to conveniently forget) that is FREE to the end user (if they have Internet access, of course). There seems to be some confusion around this whole free thing. It really forces common sense and reason to the back seat. You see, everyone seems to be pushing for the government to do everything for them. That’s fine if you want to go there. I am not here to make a political argument. But just because something is free it doesn’t mean that EVERYONE owns it! This is a company’s product / service just like Apple’s iPhone but it is offered to the masses for free. There is only one way to “own” it; buy some freakin’ Google stock!

From a business perspective though, the government should not be involved in what Google has done here with Search Plus Your World. Not at all, but people like Siegler keep yelling into their megaphone that the government will be looking into the apparent injustice that Google is perpetrating on the unsuspecting world at large. His cries will get the attention of headline hungry politicians so it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nice work, MG. He even veils it in a conspiracy theory that this is part of some master plan to drag Facebook before the government before their IPO but I’m not buying that.

What is really happening is that the idea of the open Internet actually is impossible to achieve in a free market. Why? Because if it were truly open then the big players of Google, Twitter and Facebook would be openly sharing their data with each other because everyone benefits. Guess what? That idea is BS because the only reason that Facebook and Twitter are not being used as true social signals by Google (meaning all data is available to the likes of Google to give people social influenced search results) is money.

The guess is, Twitter wanted more than Google would pay for the access to the Twitter firehose so that went away. This happens in the free market. Companies have a right to pay what they feel is the fair amount for something and Google plus Twitter have made their positions clear so they are not doing business. Free market.

Facebook doesn’t share their info with Google but they do with Bing because of their choice to be in bed with Microsoft. Once again, free market. They made a choice in business relationships and as a result Google has limited access to Facebook information to formulate a social influence result set based on their data.

Really this is all a big joke. Why can’t we just get off the bandwagon that Google owes the world something? It gives the world something, it does it well and it is rewarded handsomely for a good service that is needed. It is doing it in a completely unique environment that we have no precedent for as well. If you asked the average guy on the street as to whether or not he gives a rip that Google makes a lot of money providing its service and if they think they should be limited in what they provide as a result, most would look at you cross-eyed and say “I could care less. I just want to search the Internet”.

Then ask that person about social signals and the vast majority of the world (which Silicon Valley doesn’t have a single clue about) would once again say they will take what they can get for free as long as it works well enough to help them do what they want to do. In other words, this whole argument is happening at a level that the public, the majority, isn’t even involved in.

This is a real funny thing that is going on here because the 1% are turning on their own! The average person cares about being able to search the Internet and get good information for free. They could care less about how much a company makes doing it. The people that “care” about this the most are the ones that will profit from it like Silicon Valley, the Siegler’s of the world, politicians and the like. It’s that simple.In the end this has nothing to do with something that is for the better good. It’s for the good of the 1%. Pretty ironic considering the usually liberal angle of the Internet set!

This argument gets very circular and tiresome very quickly so I will be quiet for now. I wish opportunists like Siegler would go on radio silence as well. Now that would be heaven. Guess what? Ain’t gonna happen.

This change is a bit different in that is has caused Twitter to respond to the change as if it has some say in how Google does business. This is one of those times where the commercial Internet collides directly with the ideal of the Internet. Open sharing for all is the ideal while the business side is busy creating the best mousetrap to capture users so they can see ads. Not everyone’s ads, mind you, just their ads. There’s open then there are profits .

If you want to hear various levels of analysis, conjecture, whining, posturing and more, you can check out the various talking heads like MG Siegler, Liz Gannes, Danny Sullivan, Google, Matt Cutts and an endless parade of opinion creators and leaders. Bottom line is this, complain if you must but Google is doing what Google is doing. Do you really think they didn’t consider the potential anti-trust implications? Really?

Anyway, what is really taking place here is that as personalization of the web continues to “progress’ it is likely to be driving the openness of the Internet, as ideally intended, into the background because the ultimate result of personalization is giving people what they want vs. providing for them what they might actually need.

Let me use this as an example. Steve Jobs did what he wanted with regard to the treatment of his pancreatic cancer. He did what HE wanted versus taking information from others that didn’t fit his thinking, and thus created a personalized solution to treat the cancer based on his level of medical training (which I think was none). In hindsight, his personalization may have very well kept a better solution away from him for a critical amount of time and may have contributed to his death. What we want is not always what we need.

This example is extreme I admit but it makes my point. This uproar has nothing to do with what company A is doing or not doing to Company B. It’s about what is happening to the web via personalization. In my opinion, personalization is making people dumber and less open because it is filtering out competing ideas. That is a very bad thing, folks. Getting what you want vs. what you actually need is an important distinction. If personalization only gives you information about who you are now, then will you miss opportunities to learn something that will make you better later?

I would encourage you to watch the following TED talk from Eli Pariser, the author of “The Filter Bubble”. He does a much better job of articulating this issue than I could and this was months before Google upped the ante with “Search Plus Your World”. Interestingly enough, this is a perfect example of something that, based on my personal preferences, I should have never seen if I left it up to Google, Facebook and other highly personalized Internet outlet. Politically Mr. Pariser is as far left and I am a right, in most cases I would be diametrically opposed to his views. But what he says here makes great sense and should be heeded.

So in the end this is not about whether Google is screwing Twitter or anything else. What is truly being debated, in most cases without the opinion leaders even realizing it, is the freedom that the Internet used to offer vs. the Internet that may seem more manageable to some but it is very limiting.

This is not good news. As for the business and marketing side of this? Well, we will do what we can to work the system to our advantage. That’s our job. Ultimately though we should consider what that system is providing and just how it means that many who may need your product or service may never get to find it because they aren’t aware that they need it, at least according to their Google and Facebook algorithmic selves.

As we like to do here at Marketing Pilgrim, we’ll give you the video intro from Google just to whet your appetite regarding this rather significant addition to the Google search function. It comes from the official Google blog

Here is some more from the Google blog regarding the specific changes. We recommend you read the entire post.

We’re transforming Google into a search engine that understands not only content, but also people and relationships. We began this transformation with Social Search, and today we’re taking another big step in this direction by introducing three new features:

Personal Results, which enable you to find information just for you, such as Google+ photos and posts—both your own and those shared specifically with you, that only you will be able to see on your results page;

Profiles in Search, both in autocomplete and results, which enable you to immediately find people you’re close to or might be interested in following; and,

People and Pages, which help you find people profiles and Google+ pages related to a specific topic or area of interest, and enable you to follow them with just a few clicks. Because behind most every query is a community.

You also have the option to take a look at Danny Sullivan’s take ,if you like with his usual “in-depth” approach.

As for us here at MP, we are going to do what we do best which is to take a look at these changes as they evolve over the next weeks and months. Other than knowing the features today, it’s only guessing at just how they will play out in the real world and what the impact will be to search marketers and marketers in general.

So all you early adopters enjoy the new Google search. Just remember that when you talk to the rest of the world (i.e. those not in your line of work) about these neat things, they probably won’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.

From the Bing blog

Did you happen to notice the new routing engine we implemented on Bing Maps? No? I suppose that’s a good thing since your service was never interrupted. However, I can tell you that we’re enjoying the reduced latency, high performance, low overhead benefits of a new route calculation algorithm that changes the game in how driving directions queries are computed.

There is more to the maps update which are about finding traffic issues and some have commented on the improvement over Google’s same results set. That’s pretty cool and quite useful.

What I found was even more telling was the first line of the post from Bing Product Manager, Chris Pendleton. I am quite sure this was completely unintended but he kind of captures the problem that Bing suffers from when it does anything in search in his first two sentences by saying “Did you happen to notice the new routing engine we implemented on Bing Maps? No?”.

His point was that your service was not down for this to happen which is great but the way I read it elicited the thought in my head of “Well, of course I didn’t because I never consider Bing as an option for this kind of thing”. I know I am not alone. Each month the search market share results play that out. As an industry follower I will now take a look at this option (especially since yesterday I experienced a Google navigation fiasco that could have had me driving in circles if I wasn’t really paying attention). But will the rest of the world notice? Without the “Bing and Decide” ads popping up like they used to during sports events I forget that it even exists. I am not being mean here, I am just telling the truth.

Now that the airwaves are being invaded by Google advertising, Bing runs the risk of being further marginalized in the search race. Well, I guess they could always turn to their Fair Search efforts and try to legislate increased market share. But any self respecting company wouldn’t go that route now would they? I digress.

From the Chrome blog regarding speed

Today’s Beta release improves on two of Chrome’s core principles: speed and security.

One of the things people like best about Chrome is that it loads web pages quickly. To get you where you want to go even faster, Chrome will now start loading some web pages in the background, even before you’ve finished typing the URL in the omnibox. If the URL auto-completes to a site you’re very likely to visit, Chrome will begin to prerender the page. Prerendering reduces the time between when you hit Enter and when you see your fully-loaded web page–in some cases, the web page appears instantly.

Hey faster is good. I am most interested in accuracy however. If Google can deliver on both fronts this will make a good product even better. With Chrome now having the number two position in the browser wars Microsoft is probably keeping a close eye on this release as well.

With regard to safety the blog continues

On the security front, improvements to Chrome’s Safe Browsing technology should help protect you from additional types of malware attacks. Previously, Chrome focused primarily on protecting you from sites that would exploit your computer with no user interaction required. Now, we’re seeing an increase in malicious websites that try to convince you to download and run a file that will harm your computer. Some websites even pretend this malicious file is a free anti-virus product.

On would think that having increased attention being paid to safety at the browser level is a good thing. Can’t be too safe right?

In the end, anything that Google announces these days needs to be looked at through the lens of just how this impacts the overall Google “ecosystem” (what other terms are there out there for this because every time I type that I cringe since it sounds so buzz-wordy?). A faster browser for faster searches means more information that can be gathered and potentially shared on Google+.

In 2012, it is likely that everything Google does will point to Google+ ultimately. Will 2012 be the year for Google+? Wait this post was about Chrome wasn’t it? Oh well, I guess that’s how it will go.

It appears Google does, in fact, hold themselves accountable (to some degree) for their own policies and guidelines. News broke late on Monday by Aaron Wall (an internet marketer who founded SeoBook.com), when his community discovered a “This post is sponsored by Google” sponsored post.

Search marketers know very well that Google has a strict stance against paid links and states in their guidelines that “some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links”, noting that “buying and selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.”

Google’s official statement was:

“Google never agreed to anything more than online ads. We have consistently avoided paid sponsorships, including paying bloggers to promote our products., because these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users. We’re now looking at what changes we need to make to ensure that this never happens again.”

As soon as this news broke, everyone in the SEO community wondered what would be Google’s response. Will they hold themselves to their own rules? It appears they somewhat do as Google applied a penalty against the page and searching for the keyword “browser” no longer returns Google Chrome.

Google’s distinguished engineer, Matt Cutts formerly posted:

“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”

Google announced that they are reducing the PageRank for domain www.google.com/chrome for up to and including 60 days. Interestingly enough, searching for “browser” no longer returns Google Chrome in the organic listings, although it will show up in the paid search box. Searching “chrome” however will still return Chrome in the organic listings, PageRank 1.

Top billing is now going to the Download and Install page with Google Chrome coming up as a sitelink. In addition, Google’s listing for the query “browser” has been pushed all the way back to page 5.

Although the domain was penalized, Google may not be doing enough to account for their actions. Since they are under recent criticism by a US Senate Subcommittee for allegations of the search titan abusing their power in the industry to favor some search engine results, Google has done the minimum to respond.

Further dialogue is anticipated as to how this type of thin content and linking practice could have made it’s way through quality control in purchasing their video ads. This type of organic drop is not welcome news on the heels of recent news that Google and Firefox renew their search deal and its goal of increasing browser market share.

The views and opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Marketing Pilgrim.

Todd Bailey is Vice President of Digital Strategy at WebiMax, a leading SEO company with 500+ clients and 150+ employees as well as Lead Contributor at SEOservices.com

All these fun facts are coming to us from Experian Hitwise and we’ve got even more! Memorize a few and use them to astound your friends and family at the holiday dinner table.

Online Rules!

It’s probably no coincidence that the top 10 most-searched terms are all internet destinations. YouTube, Craigslist (one of my personal favorites), Ebay and the like. I was initially perplexed by why people would search “Facebook.com” when they could just put it in the address bar. Then I remembered watching my husband navigate to Facebook and that’s what he does – he types the term in the Google search then uses the link to access the site. I’ve tried to tell him that’s the long way around but you know. . . dogs and tricks.

Simon Bradstock, general manager of Experian Hitwise has a comment about this:

“Navigational searches dominated the top search results as users typed in terms versus typing in the URL in the browser bar. Hitwise saw 11 percent growth of single-word searches in 2011 as terms like ‘face’ and ‘you’ made the top 50 searches. Marketers need to be particularly brand-savvy when managing their search optimization campaigns because of this behavior, which is a result of predictive search functionality across major search engines.”

Facebook accounted for 3.10% of all searches, an increase of 46% over last year. It was also the top-visited website for the second year eating up 10.29% of all US traffic between January and November of 2011.

New News

Although there is a lot of repetition in the top 50, a few new terms broke into the list this year. CNN, chase online, hotmail, lowes, pandora, amazon.com and twitter.

Casey Anthony was the most searched person in the news and media category with Charlie Sheen and Kim Kardashian landing in the top 20.

Fastest moving search terms for 2011 revolved around Osama Bin Laden and Hurricane Irene. Les Paul also made the list along with Nick Ashford and Amber Cole.

Very Entertaining

We did a lot of searching for entertainment related info. Hulu was the top generic search in the TV category.

Top TV show went to American Idol, followed by Young and the Restless, Dora the Explorer, Dancing with the Stars, and Days of our Lives. (Would it be sexist of me to extrapolate that the majority of TV term searchers were women?)

Lady Gaga was the most search musical act with Beyonce, Taylor Swift and Chris Brown all making the list for very different reasons.

Fastest moving movie titles? Star Wars, Transformers, (Twilight) Breaking Dawn,  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Fast Five.

Finally, in sports, the Dallas Cowboys were the most searched team while Tiger Woods, Danica Patrick and Brett Favre were the most searched individuals on the list.

When I look over this list of top searches, I am again struck by the fact that, in spite of my attempts to break out, I am a typical internet users. Yes, my searches added to the cumulative totals of the majority of these terms.

I think we should all band together and force a new word into next year’s most searched list. I vote for Snarghooten. I don’t know what it means, but I like how it sounds.

Happy searching, one and all.

Well, Mozilla is more than happy to report on their blog

We’re pleased to announce that we have negotiated a significant and mutually beneficial revenue agreement with Google. This new agreement extends our long term search relationship with Google for at least three additional years.

“Under this multi-year agreement, Google Search will continue to be the default search provider for hundreds of millions of Firefox users around the world,” said Gary Kovacs, CEO, Mozilla.

“Mozilla has been a valuable partner to Google over the years and we look forward to continuing this great partnership in the years to come,” said Alan Eustace, Senior Vice President of Search, Google.

The specific terms of this commercial agreement are subject to traditional confidentiality requirements, and we’re not at liberty to disclose them.

So an obvious question for inquiring search minds is where was Micosoft’s Bing in this opportunity to grab more market share with one fell swoop than could happen just about anywhere else? Well, the Business Insider’s take is that Microsoft may have reached the point where they stop shoveling gobs of shareholder profits into the mouth of the search beast whose hunger could not be met. A dramatic way to say that maybe they are done pissing money away on search.

Last year, Google paid Mozilla about $103 million for the right to be the default search engine.

That’s chump change for Microsoft. Even if the deal was much more expensive this time around as both companies bid up the price, Microsoft blinked first.

Why?

Microsoft had no comment, but here’s one possibility: Microsoft has already reached its market share goal with Bing and is tightening the wallet to bring expenses under control.

Some of the evidence they roll out is the fact that Bing has reached its desired 30% of search market share with its Bingahoo set up, it has decreased marketing spend by 25% last quarter (YoY), it is paying lower than market wages to attract talent to Bing and they have let some serious players seek opportunities elsewhere within Microsoft where there may be more for them for the future.

If these reasons are truly the case, and it is speculation of course that they are, then are the search wars over for now?

Maybe the battleground has just shifted from actual competitive activities to the new Microsoft technique of trying to legislate competition by being a driving force of the ridiculous Fair Search movement? If that is the “strategy” that Bing has cooked up then we should all be concerned because in a word, that’s lame.

So what do you think? Is the Bing v Google battle on the wane? Is losing billions of dollars of shareholders’ money wearing on the software giant? Or is it that they are really just a software giant and not an Internet player after all? With cloud services getting the traction they currently are how long will Microsoft have a traditional software business to line the coffers?

Here is Google’s video recap for you to ease into your Monday with (note the promotion of all the Google products and services as well)

What was most important to you in 2011? What do you want out of your 2012?

What that means is after a year of stats that show size doesn’t matter on Facebook, it could matter on Google+.

The one sure thing that matters is good content. Google has always rewarded fresh, clear, constantly updated content and Google+ is no exception. The trouble is, right now, most folks are still experimenting with Google+. Many are posting the same content they post to Facebook, while others are randomly updating with no thought to SEO.

And why not? When you woke up this morning, did you really think about crafting a Google+ update that was SEO friendly? Probably not. (And if you did, more power to you!)

Michael Scissons, president of Syncapse was quoted as saying:

“Everybody at this point is in trial and discovery mode around best practices, and I believe Google will start to give some degree of preference to Google+ pages over Facebook pages, because it’s in their own best interest to do so.”

That’s really the crux of the whole thing, isn’t it? Google has a search engine that needs to be constantly fed. Facebook doesn’t. They don’t even have a decent, internal search engine, so undoubtedly there’s good content on Facebook going to waste.

Actually, I take that back. I’m not sure there is good content on Facebook or Google+ at the moment. A daily scan reveals a large quantity of funny videos and photos. I also did a scan for my favorite brands and found that none of them have active pages except for Coca-Cola. Their page is their usual mix of fun trivia, pop culture, and happiness. Not a bad example to follow.

So where do you stand on Google+ for your business? Does the idea that it might affect your search ranking make you want to post more? Or is it still too new to make an impact?