 |
| MARXEM DE VACANCES |
 |
| ESTAMOS DE VACACIONES |
divendres, 29 de juliol del 2011
dijous, 28 de juliol del 2011
How to Choose the Right Host For Your Online Video - ReadWriteCloud
How to Choose the Right Host For Your Online Video - ReadWriteClouIf all you want is a bunch of people to see your latest video, go ahead and post it on YouTube. If you want a lot more people to see that video or you want to embed it in your Web site or use it to bring mega-traffic to your site, you need to look at other hosting services, not just YouTube. And if you use multiple video hosting sites, you'll want a super-fast, simple way to upload your video to multiple sites. No problem. We'll show you how to do that, too.
Why buy a cow when the YouTube milk is free?...
Robin Miller is an independent videographer and freelance writer who was former editor-in-chief at Geek.net (formerly SourceForge) for 10 years. He has written three computer books for Prentice Hall and can be reached at robin@roblimo.com.
YouTube is the king of Web video. Every video you make for public consumption should be on YouTube, and the text description attached to every one of your YouTube videos should contain your Web site's URL. All embedded YouTube videos have a YouTube logo, which means they're using your site to promote YouTube. It's only fair for you to do the same thing in reverse.
A little learning can help your videos go a long way
Before you start posting heavily on YouTube, you should do a little homework atYouTube.com/creators_corner to learn how to get the most out of the site. (All Creators' Corner info about making quality video applies to other video sites, too.)
Here's an article by marketing tipster Joe Shaw about embedding YouTube videos in your (or any) Web site. We could do a whole article (or series of articles) about video embedding, but for the moment we'll leave you with Joe's tutorial, and talk about other sites where you might want to host your videos.
Dailymotion is not as strong a traffic driver as YouTube, but it's more than worth your upload time. Video quality is high, and it's free. Type your site's URL into the video info space, including http://, and you have a link to your site, which is good SEO. YouTube acts the same way. Neither site allows hyperlinks, so just type in your URL and be happy.
Dailymotion also has a "white box" (unbranded), paid account option called Dailymotion Cloud that costs $0.125 per player hour, which is not a bad considering that it is a complete video solution, including many player and display options, and has no monthly or annual minimum.
Now and then I've experienced buffering delays (where a video doesn't play momentarily because it's loading too slowly) on Dailymotion, but I get them with YouTube, too. These are often regional problems, and depend on the Web cache a particular video service is using, and how much of a load it is handling at the moment.
Paying for video hosting
dilluns, 25 de juliol del 2011
Salud con cosas: Escanea que algo queda
Curiosa infografía aparecida en el blog de Iron Mountain sobre el escaneo de historias clínicas en Estados Unidos... Los datos son escalofriantes (al menos las cifras que se manejan para escanear documentos) y es que, ante el inicio de la temporada de incentivos para el uso de historia clínica electrónica en USA, hay que tenerlo todo preparado.
El portal Enfermera virtual integra un centenar de fichas de Vademecum sobre fármacos
Esta integración es posible gracias a un acuerdo que el Col•legi Oficial d’Infermeres i Infermers de Barcelona (COIB) firmó hace un año con Vademecum con el objetivo de que ambas organizaciones compartan información y conocimientos en salud y farmacología.
Enfermera virtual (www.infermeravirtual.com), el portal de educación y promoción para la salud del Col•legi Oficial d’Infermeres i Infermers de Barcelona (COIB), integra actualmente un centenar de enlaces directos a fichas técnicas de fármacos publicadas en Vademecum.
Así, la enfermera que consulte Enfermera virtual tiene a su alcance un web de conocimiento integrado, ya que desde un mismo portal dispone de todos los recursos necesarios para proporcionar los mejores cuidados enfermeros y ayudar al usuario a tomar decisiones que le ayuden a mejorar su salud.
Por ejemplo, desde la ficha de la actividad de la vida diaria de respirar, se incluyen enlaces hacia Vademecum sobre tratamientos farmacológicos que pueden afectar al centro respiratorio, estimulando o deprimiéndolo, como la morfina, el diazepam, el lorazepam o la teofilina.
En el caso de los contenidos de tabaquismo de Enfermera virtual se incorporan enlaces hacia fichas técnicas relacionadas con tratamientos para dejar de fumar como los parches y los chicles de nicotina, el bupropión o la varenicilina.
De momento, desde Enfermera virtual se pueden consultar fichas técnicas de fármacos, que se encuentran en Vademecum, a través de los contenidos relacionados con respirar, tabaquismo, comer y beber, antidiabéticos orales y enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, entre otras.
Por otra parte, desde la página de Vademecum se puede encontrar información de consejos de salud, procedentes de Enfermera virtual. Así, desde las fichas técnicas de fármacos y de enfermedades y síntomas de Vademecum se han incorporado más de 1.480 enlaces de consejos de salud de Enfermera virtual.
Convenio de colaboración
Este intercambio e integración de contenidos es posible gracias a un acuerdo de colaboración que el Col•legi Oficial d’Infermeres i Infermers de Barcelona (COIB) firmó hace un año con Vademecum con el objetivo de que ambas organizaciones compartan información y conocimientos en salud y farmacología.
Este intercambio e integración de contenidos es posible gracias a un acuerdo de colaboración que el Col•legi Oficial d’Infermeres i Infermers de Barcelona (COIB) firmó hace un año con Vademecum con el objetivo de que ambas organizaciones compartan información y conocimientos en salud y farmacología.
El objetivo del COIB y de Vademecum es seguir ampliando la cantidad de información para compartir. Así, en el futuro está previsto incluir en los contenidos de Enfermera virtual, además de enlaces a fichas farmacológicas de Vademecum, enlaces a fichas de productos y material sanitario que utilizan las enfermeras para sus cuidados.
El portal Enfermera virtual ha duplicado en el último año el número de visitas, al pasar de 33.100 a 67.029 visitas mensuales. La mayoría de los navegantes que entra a Enfermera virtual (83,94%) lo hace mediante buscadores, mientras que un 11,77% lo hace accediendo directamente al web.
El acceso mediante la página corporativa del COIB, de Vademecum y de redes sociales son los siguientes puntos de inicio que utilizan los usuarios para acceder a Enfermera virtual. El 87% de los usuarios de Enfermera virtual son personas que entran por primera vez a este portal.
Publishers’ websites: the bad, the bad and the ugly. | FutureBook
Harsh? Perhaps, but you get my point? It seems to be a known known within the industry that many publishers’ websites are indeed both bad and ugly.
A few days ago I tested this view on the most responsive and clever people I know; publishing tweeps. I asked them if they felt that publishers’ websites were poor and if this was a general view of the book trade.
My first (and favourite) response came from Agent Peter Cox, who tweeted, ‘Gosh, do publishers have websites? Spiffing! :)’
So, it seems, the industry is well aware that most of their websites aren’t likely to win a digital award any time soon.
This tweet from @caxtonian captures some of the issues.
@caxtonian ‘most sites aren’t great.....it isn’t easy as most are internally organised as B2B then they try to be B2C’
Looking at quite a few websites you can see that publishers have taken a B2B brochure site and simply bolted on an ecommerce store. Lots of these stores are little more than poorly executed afterthoughts that offer unsearchable books and an ugly and unsatisfactory shopping experience.
In this week’s Bookseller magazine, Alex O’Byrne and Piers Thorogood (ofhttp://www.wemakewebsites.com) point out, ‘A common mistake is to build the site navigation around an internal company structure’.
It seems that the general difficulties publishers are experiencing transitioning themselves from old economy B2B businesses into consumer-facing B2C businesses are being mirrored in their often painfully clunky websites.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not underestimating the challenges inherent in this transition.
@5_mintespeace: ‘some websites are terrible, especially in terms of searching for their books and backlist.’
and
@ed_renehan: ‘ I think many pub websites are poorly done – especially, lousy ergonomics/navigation +not enough updating’
Not getting the basics right, like searching for books, is pretty inexcusable, isn’t it?
Ditto, a poorly designed website. We are in the business of books, not storage boxes – our products are full of beauty, creativity and visual potential. Book jackets are often sublime. And publishers have some of the best brands to play with (authors, characters, imprints).
And with this much creative collateral publishers still often produce ugly websites.
@thefictiondesk: ‘Do you think there is still a fear among publishers of being booksellers themselves? That it would upset other booksellers?’
and
@vixhartley: ‘I think there is a reticence among publishers about discounting on their sites to consumers in case of retailer pushback’
Again, both are important points. And shows the challenging cross-roads publishers find themselves at – selling directly to their customers at the same time as maintaining retail and etail commercial relationships.
Weapons of mass destruction
So whilst the trade laments the US giants’ steady destruction of traditional bookselling and their stranglehold on the channels to market, publishers are dragging their feet.
Ironically, publishers have a HUGE opportunity for their websites to do much more than these giants ever could but they need to start making fundamental strategic changes soon or they’ll be left behind as other players move into an already crowded marketplace.
They can offer different purchasing options; bundling, subscriptions, community-driven ideas, connection with authors, videos, blogs, joined up thinking with Facebook pages and Twitter accounts (where all the good stuff is already happening, in my opinion) and much more. Websites can be vibrant places for publishers to engage with their customers, understand them and respond to them.
This is not about me bashing publishers, these are just observations. There are many exceptions; not just of excellent simple websites but publishers’ websites that are supporting a shift in business models, creating engaged communities and exceeding their customers’ expectations. These publishers are making their online presences work hard for them.
I have written this post to kick off a series of website reviews. If you have a publisher website in mind or would like to be involved, please email me at sam.missingham@bookseller.co.uk
dimecres, 20 de juliol del 2011
newsletter: Let's Get Social: What Does Google+ Add To The Social Graph?
by Ciarán Norris
Is there anything else that this week's column could have been about? After months & months of rumours, leaks, presentations and high-profile talent grabs, Google finally launched its Facebook competitor™*. After the farce that was Wave, and the let-down that was Buzz, Google+ seems to be Google's big push to date to get into social.
However, outside the reams of press about how it looks a bit like Facebook, or acts a bit like Friendfeed, or isn't as good as Twitter, the one question that I haven't seen asked, is exactly why Google would bother to launch a social network?
Let's look at some numbers:
· $50 million – estimated Twitter ad revenue for 2010
· $150 million – estimated Twitter ad revenue for 2011
· $644 million – Groupon 2010 revenue, losses – $102 million
· $1.86 billion – estimated Facebook ad revenue for 2010, profits – $355 million
· $2.6 billion – estimated Groupon revenues for 2011, losses – $147 million in Q1
· $4 billion, estimated Facebook ad revenue for 2011, profits – $2 billion
· $29 billion, Google 2010 revenue, profits – $8.5 billion
Yep, Google's profits for 2010 were more than the combined revenues of, arguably, the three biggest social brands (even without taking into account Groupon's staggering losses).
So, considering that, why on earth would Google want to go to all the hassle of launching its own social network, when none of the existing ones are making that much money?
Well, because with everything Google, it all comes back to search.
Several reports have shown that things that do well on Facebook tend to do well on Google too. That's not to say that Facebook impacts Google rankings – they can't, as Facebook only shares that data with Bing. Rather, it's proof of the fact that likes are the modern day link; that is, the sort of things that people used to link to (and still do), now tend to get liked.
In many ways, likes are a much better model for directing search results. Linking was always a bit of a niche activity – you had to have a web page, you probably had to know a bit of HTML. In other words, links were for geeks, likes are for everyone.
Therefore, if Google wants to maintain its hold on the search sector, it needs to develop its own social graph, or at least that's how people at Google have described it to me.
The question of course, is whether they will be able to build their own social graph. After a day of playing with Google+, I like it. But will I like it enough to maintain it alongside, or even instead of, Twitter & Facebook, or will the tyranny of attention prevail? I'm not sure.
Google has hedged its bets with its Twitter deal**, but to put this deal into context, whilst many trumpeted Apple's decision to integrate Twitter with its new iOS, it is worth highlighting the fact that the combined audience of Twitter users and Apple devices doesn't match Facebook's userbase. For once, Google isn't the Goliath in this battle, and neither is the ally it has found to join it.
What is for sure is that whilst all the hype and attention surrounds Google+, Facebook and all things social, Google will carry on making bucket-loads of cash, at the same time as it continues its assault on the ever-more profitable display market, with its pincer movement of YouTube's increased investment in professional content, and its own DSP. Of course, if Facebook decided to launch its own ad-network, then all bets will be off.
*™ belongs to the world's press.
**Since originally writing this post, the Google-Twitter deal has suddenly come to an end, making the creation of its own social graph more important than ever.
Opinions expressed in the article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land.
Ciarán Norris is the Head of Digital for Mindshare Ireland, as well as holding a global role for the media agency as Director, Emerging Media. AtMindshare he works with both local & multinational clients, helping them to integrate on & offline, and to utilise search, social, mobile & video in their broader marketing mix. See more articles by Ciarán Norris
FIPP Vital Guide to Google: lectura interesante
paso el boletin completo, hay varios artículos de interés
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FULL ARTICLE
Subscriure's a:
Missatges (Atom)