Posts tagged Versus
More and more, I have been interacting with executives using campaign management tools as their internal reporting systems. In most cases, these companies have an analytics package but prefer to use ad server data rather than analytics for internal tracking. Campaign management tools and analytics…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
What do we really know about HTML5? It is a Web based standard with the potential to create cross-platform apps that can run anywhere, everywhere. The key word here is potential. HTML5 is evolving and there is little doubt that it will be a major component of the future. That does not yet mean that developers have wholly embraced it.
The native frameworks and (gasp) Flash still dominate much of what is run on Web and mobile applications. Flash is on its last legs but the fact of the matter is that it is still one of the prime standards for many of the applications we interact with on a daily basis. It is not like we flip a switch and all of a sudden everything is HTML5 based. Below we take a look at an infographic that examines some of the facts around HTML5 hype versus the current real world landscape.
For faithful ReadWriteMobile readers that are used to checking in here to see the latest developments on what is happening with the HTML5 ecosystem, this infographic is going to make you a little angry. Even though I, as am objective reporter, am relatively platform and standards agnostic, it even angered me a little bit.
Anybody that knows my opinion on infographics, I diligently fact check them to make sure they are not misleading or blatantly lying. While some of the information on this particular infographic is a little dated, the general theme is spot on: yes, HTML5 is still in adoption phase and is outpaced by the native frameworks.
While this is true, the signs of change are in the air. Even Adobe admitted that mobile Flash is a dead fish and the last instance of it to be released will be run on Android Ice Cream Sandwich devices. Adobe itself is moving to create HTML5 and other Web-based tools for desktop and mobile applications.
The source of the infographic is a Washington-state based Zipline Games, makers of the Moai Cloud service for games. Moai Cloud 1.0 will be released March 23rd. The CEO of Zipline is Todd Hooper who has been fairly outspoken that HTML5 will not be the future for Web or mobile games.
“HTML5 was not created with games in mind and the working group …had no members from game companies.” Bingo.
— Todd Hooper (@toddhooper) November 2, 2011
Hooper does have a point. When it comes to performance of applications, games set the benchmark. At this point, HTML5 is just not ready for games. Does that mean it is not the future? That is difficult to ascertain. Say what you want about standards bodies and their actual usefulness, but HTML5 is certainly not ready for the official stamp of approval. Layered sound is a major issue and frame rates tend to lag behind other standards. While Sencha and appMobi among others attempt to improve HTML5 performance, game developers struggle to make do with what the standard allows.
Check out the infographic below and let us know what you think about the future of HTML5 in games in the comments. Also stay tuned for a Q&A with Hooper coming early next week.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
It’s a demonstrated fact that as cloud application users find themselves logging on more and more often, they tend to oversimplify their passwords in an effort to avoid writing them all down someplace. It doesn’t help that many IT shops’ first course of action is to standardize identity around social networks such as Facebook, making these public repositories into the lynchpins of private networks’ security strategies.
This morning’s rollout by Ping Identity of a new point release for its PingFederate identity management system is an effort to reorient businesses that have already begun using public identity providers, around a centralized identity scheme that resides back inside the firewall. There, administrators can create policies that govern how users access privileged network resources, based on such factors as where they are, and whether they can also log onto – and authenticate themselves from – someplace else that’s actually stronger.
This latter concept is called authentication chaining, and it’s one of three elements that Ping is touting in its new marketing push around “Adaptive Federation.” Certainly being able to leverage authentication resources from Facebook or LinkedIn expedites the registration process for e-commerce sites. But the strength of that authentication is not enough during checkout, when a logged-in customer may have access to stored credit card data.
So what Ping suggests is a form of chaining that also incorporates a stronger, multi-factor authentication system such as PhoneFactor. An admin may then establish authentication rules that evaluate specified criteria (“Is this a remote user?”) and, if the case is true, chain the process over to that stronger provider. If that provider is unavailable, or if something goes wrong, a separate rule may establish a failover identity provider – someone to trust in the absence of clarity.
“If you have users in multiple directories, and you want to be able to authenticate those users across those directories,” explains Ping Identity technical marketing manager David Gorton in an instructional video published today (above), “you can actually chain those directories together.” This way, after the user provides credentials, the newly enhanced PingFederate system will check them against each directory, until one is capable of validating those credentials. “If he doesn’t get authenticated in any of those directories, he gets rejected,” Gorton continues.
With the third added component, attribute aggregation, elements of a SAML assertion may be combined from multiple sources. This way, for example, when an enterprise stores its employee data in a database rather than Active Directory, PingFederate can collect elements from both sources and piece them together.
“This functionality makes virtual directory products unnecessary for attribute aggregation,” reads a Ping Identity product guide released today. That may not be the best news for so-called identity service providers like Radiant Logic, whose RadiantOne Virtual Directory Server, released last July, manages multiple logons through a centralized console. Radiant and Ping had been partners since 2007 on virtual directory support.
Indeed, back in 2005, Ping CEO Andre Durand went so far as to call virtual directories and identity federation tools “natural product partners.” But that was before providers started moving those virtual directories to the cloud, as services outside corporate firewalls. As the chart above from 2012 suggests, PingFederate remains firmly planted as a public-facing service inside the corporate firewall. While this move isn’t enough to split the partnership, it does place the two companies on different rotational axes, if you will, with respect to where the federation takes place.
Ping Identity is holding a webinar on the new topic of authentication rules and chaining, this Thursday, February 16, at 11:00 am ET. Register here to take part.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Bakermewting SEO Challenge Announced – Students Versus Pro
PR.com (press release)
Barrie, Canada, August 07, 2011 –(PR.com)– Bakermewting.org is happy to announce that it is participating in the Bakermewting SEO Challenge taking place at Georgian College in Barrie, Ontario. Drew Dekker, VP & COO of NetGain SEO, teaches a web …
View full post on SEO – Google News
In July 2010 Sembox agency executed the research on the ad text efficiency in PPC campaigns.
The research was based on analyzing the performance of ad texts used in PPC campaigns of Sembox clients. The correlation between ad text ranking and CTR was the subject of a detailed analysis, while the other campaign settings remained unchanged.
What the research managed to establish is that:
- There is a significant correlation between CTR and text tanking of the particular ad text – the average CTR at 11th spot is ca.1% and increases to achieve the CTR of 8% at the top place.
- The performance of the ad text at spots 7-9 is very similar (1,5 – 2,2%). It is probably due to the relatively low exposure of the ad among other ad texts being presented at the same time.
- The performance of the ad text at spots 1-6 depends strongly on ad text ranking and there can be seen a significant improvement between the following spots of the ad text (from 0,5% up to 2,5%).
Pic.1. The correlation between average CTR and ad text ranking.
A more detailed research was executed for a sample of the ad texts meeting the qualitative criteria and the results were as follows:
- The ad text shift from 11th1 to 10th spot (bar no. 10 at the chart below) brings the relative drop of CTR by 6,5% - it is probably connected with moving the ad text from the last (utmost) spot to a middle one which is simply less exposed.
- The ad text shift at 8th and 9th spot (ie. from 9th to 8th and from 10th to 9th) brings insignificant changes in CTR – because of reasons provided at the previous page.
- The ad text shift in spot range of 3-7 (ie. from 4th to 3rd, from 5th to 4th, etc.) brings a substantial difference in CTR – on average by 33-39% which means that it may be reasonable to obtain the highest possible ad text ranking in this range that will result in a larger volume of clicks (visits) at the campaign landing page.
- The ad text shift from 3rd to 2nd spot and from 2nd to 1st spot (bars no. 2 & 1 at the chart below) results in insignificant change in CTR – 17,3% and 8,2% accordingly which proves a comparable exposure of ad texts at top spots.
Pic.2. The relative % change of CTR between adjoining spots of the same ad text.
Reversing the conclusions presented at the previous page we can say that:
- A sample ad text that has a CTR of 1% at 11th spot will be 7 times more effective when distributed at the top spot – the average growth of CTR for all analyzed ad texts was equal to 707,6%.
- The increase in ad text performance can be more significant and depends on base efficiency of ads – the sample of ad texts that were significantly more efficient than 1% at 11th spot proved to achieve even 9 times higher CTR at the top spot.
Pic.3. A simulation of CTR of the ad text that has a base CTR of 1% at 11th spot.
The relation between ad text ranking and CTR
Almost everyone who is involved in PPC campaign management is aware that ad text ranking influences campaign effectiveness. The click-through ratio (CTR) is higher if the ad text is more exposed (ie. closer to the top of the page) to user’s eyes. We tried to calculate the strength of this relation in our research. In order to do this we analyzed the average daily rankings of ad texts used in campaigns over several months (the detailed methodology of the research is described in the last part of this document).
The following groups of ad text were analyzed:
- all texts that had any number of views/clicks (marked as “0/0″ segment),
- ad texts that had at least 200 views and 10 clicks (“200/10″ segment),
- ad texts that had at least 1000 views and 20 clicks (“1000/20″ segment),
- ad texts that had at least 1000 views and 100 clicks (“1000/100″ segment).
We would expect to observe significant differences in effectiveness of ad texts belonging to the most general segment (“0 / 0″) because of the fact that a lot of texts had statistically insignificant results (to few impressions or clicks) and the best performing ad texts from “1000 / 100″ segment which should have been the most valuable from the statistical point of view.
As a result, we observed the following performance:
|Segment / Rank||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||11|
|0 / 0||7,73||5,54||4,51||3,49||2,81||2,30||1,69||1,49||1,69||1,19||0,45|
|200 / 10||7,83||5,58||4,53||3,53||2,85||2,34||1,75||1,62||1,97||1,47||0,69|
|1000 / 20||7,93||5,59||4,54||3,54||2,86||2,36||1,76||1,63||2,00||1,53||0,77|
|1000 / 100||8,14||5,66||4,62||3,64||2,95||2,42||1,88||1,92||2,16||1,75||1,12|
Tab.1. Relation between CTR and ad text ranking in various segments.
The difference in performance of ad texts belonging to specific segments is insignificant at the same positions (e.g. 7,73% – 8,14% for the 1st spot). What is more important, the CTR change trend across all rankings is very similar in all segments. This is presented at the chart below which visualizes figures shown in Table 1:
Pic.4. Relation between CTR and ad text ranking in various segments.
The detailed analysis of particular segments enabled us to identify exceptions which made the whole summary slightly inaccurate – some segments contained ad texts which had achieved different performance results (varying from 2% to 11%). We believe this was particularly a result of:
- specifications of campaign subject,
- competitiveness– number of ads exposed to the user at the same time,
- quality of ad texts of competitors and relative attractiveness of ads being the subject of this research.
These are the main reasons why the average (absolute) value may not accurately express the differences of effectiveness of ad texts. That is also why we decided to conduct a more detailed analysis which is also described in the later part of this research.
Should you want to find out the results of some further research done by the Sembox agency, please see the link below:
View full post on Search Engine Journal