Webware

Perhaps in a sign of how the plague of social media has numbed us all to the value of legitimate human connections, the New Oxford American Dictionary has picked the verb "unfriend," or "to remove someone as a 'friend' on a social networking site such as Facebook," as its 2009 Word of the Year.

At the very least, it's a testament to the ubiquity of Facebook, which now has well over 300 million members around the world.

Facebook itself takes the process of "friending" and "unfriending" very seriously. It once sent warning notes to players of a third-party game called PackRat because it encouraged players to amass huge friends lists (good heavens! they're polluting the social graph!), banned a Burger King ad campaign that let members "sacrifice" their friends to get a free cheeseburger ("Friendship is strong, but the Whopper is stronger"), and still puts a cap of 5,000 on personal profiles' friends lists.

Last year's Oxford word of the year was the decidedly less mainstream "hypermiling."

A correction was made at 9:25 a.m. PT on November 21. It was players of PackRat, not PackRat itself, that were threatened with account suspension.

How will Google manage growing demand for support for its free products, as people rely more and more on its services?

(Credit: Screenshot by Tom Krazit/CNET)

If you rely on a compelling service that happens to be free, what level of customer support are you entitled to receive?

Google is trying to figure that out. Known for using brilliant engineers, complex algorithms and speedy servers to organize online information in a simple and accessible fashion, Google is learning how to add the human touch to its repertoire as customers look for answers that can't be found on an FAQ.

Not surprisingly, not everyone is happy with the results. Some advertisers have been complaining about Google's Web-page-first approach to customer service issues for years, with the most common gripe that they find it exceedingly difficult to reach a real live human being when they have a problem that isn't answered on a product Web page. More recently, Katie Braband, who reported problems with Google Checkout's handling of transactions at her company, Datto, was just as frustrated by Google's response to her issues as she was the issues themselves. "The only e-mails we've received response to are pre-generated, it's very clear there's no person writing the e-mail," she said in September.

Google is aware that customer service will play a large role in its growth as it offers more paid services, and seems committed to improving services for those kinds of customers over time. "The first thing a CIO is going to say is, 'where is that person and how do I wring their neck?'" said Google CEO Eric Schmidt in an interview earlier this year. Schmidt knows a thing or two about traditional enterprise customer service: he ran corporate software maker Novell before joining Google. And before Novell, he was an executive at Sun Microsystems.

For many users of Google's free services, support is limited to a series of Web pages, FAQs, and user forums. That's not that surprising, since Google can't realistically offer phone support to every Gmail user who can't figure out the conversation-based design.

But as Google continues to push forward with free advertising-supported services that people and small businesses increasingly rely on in their personal and professional lives, the company appears to be banking on its ability to train those users to expect a healthy dose of relatively low-cost support. Web pages with hints, troubleshooting tips, and discussion forums are the first level of support across virtually all of Google's products and are pretty much the end of the line for those who do not pay to use products or services. That's not unusual in technology; even businesses that charge customers for their products have moved in that direction in a bid to cut support costs.

When it comes to Google's main profit engine--the AdWords search keyword ads--there are two basic kinds of customer service, said Deanna Yick, a Google representative. High-roller customers enjoy access to a personal sales team they can reach out and call, but almost everyone else relies on Web-based resources like the AdWords Help Center.

For a while, Google also offered phone support to a proportion of those advertisers without sales team connections. However, it recently reduced the amount of phone support it provides for those not supported by the sales team, leaving e-mail as the sole contact method for a larger segment (Google won't say exactly how many) of its most important customers.

"AdWords is an effective, self-service online advertising platform for advertisers of all sizes worldwide," Google said in a statement regarding the reduction in phone support. "Some clients work with our sales teams, while others prefer to manage their accounts independently. We also provide email and phone support to some advertisers, and have worked hard to build out a robust set of online resources (such as the AdWords Help Center, AdWords Learning Center and user forums) to help advertisers find the answers to their questions around the clock wherever they might be located."

Is this an issue? Google argues that in many cases e-mail and Web support can be faster than sitting on hold waiting for the next customer service representative to answer your call in the order in which it was received. The company can track the most common queries and therefore answer the most commonly asked questions on the Web much more quickly than a telephone-based system would allow, while also developing fixes for commonly reported problems as to cut down on the need for support in the first place.

But on the Google Apps side of the world, the company knows it doesn't have the luxury of pulling back on phone support with its most important customers, said Matthew Glotzbach, director of product management for Google Enterprise.

Here, as well, Google tries to encourage its users to solve their issues through forums and troubleshooting pages. It turns to the solution Google employs for just about everything--an algorithm--to get the most relevant information regarding support issues on those pages and before the people who need detailed answers, and fast.

But Google Apps Premium users--who pay $50 a year per user--can also talk to live Google support personnel anytime day or night when they encounter issues. Years of phone-based IT support has trained system administrators and IT executives to expect the human touch when it comes to advanced support, Glotzbach said, echoing Schmidt's comments last month.

Glotzbach--like any true Googler--believes there are efficiencies just waiting to be discovered that could be greatly improve the customer support experience for both Google and its customers.

"I think this is a fascinating technology and innovation challenge that's properly underappreciated as such," Glotzbach said. "When people think of support, they think of large call centers. But underneath that there is a massive opportunity to innovate." Left unmentioned were the cost savings that accompany automated support.

With innovation comes friction, however, as new ways of thinking about old problems grate on the status quo.

Google is pushing into a whole host of businesses in which it is a newcomer, such as Google Apps, Google Voice, and now Google Maps Navigation. In many cases, those products are free, which reduces expectations for premium support (usually). But those products compete against paid products and services that do provide some level of support.

As more and more people rely on these free services--and Google crowds out competitors who can't compete with free--support issues will grow. Even products that "just work" fail from time to time, and those failures present opportunities for companies to build loyalty if they handle the support encounter the right way, and resentment if they don't.

Can Google train those customers to expect a passive Web-based support experience? Or will Google's free strategy evolve into two groups, those willing to tolerate passive support for free, and those willing to pay a little extra for more service?

Either way, managing the customer experience has been a relatively easy task for Google up until now; basic search requires little customer support. It's about to get a lot more difficult.

Despite increasingly better software, blogging on phones is still a real pain compared with doing it on a regular computer. However, credit is due to WordPress, which has gone to great lengths to make the latest version of its iPhone app much better for users to both create and manage their blogs on a small screen (and without a keyboard).

Besides a new look, one of the biggest changes is that the app remembers exactly what you were doing between sessions, so that if you quit it, or get a phone call, it will take you right back to the page or menu you were looking at. This also keeps you from losing anything you hadn't saved if you're interrupted--even if you were in the middle of a writing a sentence when your phone rang. This should change the beginning of such a conversation from "I am so mad at you right now" to a simple "hello."

In addition to remembering what you were doing, the app does a much better job at letting you manage user comments. The approval screen itself looks almost identical, but the app now lets you quickly switch between the ones that have been approved and the ones that still need to be looked at. It also displays each users' Gravatar (user icon) next to their username and URL, which ends up taking up a little more space than it did in the previous iteration of the app but adds a sense of familiarity with its desktop sibling.

Other small changes include the app remembering which order you uploaded the photos in so that they display in that same order in your post. Although the app still hasn't been updated to include videos, which means 3GS owners will have to add whatever video they shot through WordPress' Web interface instead. The app also now stores passwords in a user's keychain, which means those credentials could be accessed by other applications you may want to give access to later on down the line--like, say an app that lets you post videos to a WordPress blog.

Oddly enough, the new WordPress app is completely different from the original, which still exists but will no longer be updated. The company attributes this to having switched between having an outside contractor make the first version, whereas this new one was built in-house.

The new look makes it simply to hop between comments, posts and pages. User Gravatars are now visible too.

(Credit: WordPress)

Penzu, the stylish Web word processor we checked out about a year ago, is ready to make a business out of its hosted writing tools.

The company on Wednesday introduced a professional version of its service that costs $19 a year and fixes many of the gripes we originally had about its very pretty, but feature-light, offerings.

A pro membership now gets you all kinds of goodies, including a rich text editor, tags for organization, image hosting, 256-bit AES encryption on posts that you've locked, and themes that skin the entire interface to your liking. Pro users can also slurp in their posts from another blog service (currently Live Journal only), as well as export them as PDFs and raw text files.

Penzu can now be skinned in one of six themes for those who pay for the service's new pro membership.

(Credit: Screenshot by Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

New features are not limited to pro users. All users now have a way to share a read-only version of a post to others that does not require any special sign-up for the person who's viewing it. The tool can also now grab your photos from Flickr, not just your desktop.

This feature worked without issue when we tried it, albeit slowly. You first have to dig through all your Flickr albums, then cycle eight photos at a time to find the shots for which you're looking. After that, you have to wait while they're imported, which, in our case, took close to 2 minutes per photo, making the tool take too long to be usable.

It's worth noting that the service is still designed as a diary replacement, not as a collaborative document editor, the way Google Docs, Zoho Writer, Adobe's Acrobat.com, and others operate.

Penzu's focus makes it difficult to make strong comparisons to those tools, but to be honest, I don't see much value in paying the $19 for some of the extra features it adds. Things like rich text editing, data exporting, and tagging should be standard features on just about any Web-based writing tool, if it hopes to compete for user attention and, in this case, dollars.

Once PDFs, the change to files could signify big changes afoot at Google Docs.

The sharp eyes over at the Google Operating System blog noticed that Google quietly changed some wording in Google Docs from "PDFs" to "files." While small, this could signal that Google Docs may soon support the viewing and editing of other file types, and possibly double as an online storage service--like the fabled GDrive.

Google has long-allowed users to upload PDFs to Docs. These could be viewed in Google's online viewer, but not edited. However, the service would not allow other items such as photos and videos to be imported, despite Google offering other products like Picasa and YouTube that would accept these files.

Google began an overhaul of its Docs service late last week, and noted that it was putting in some small changes ahead of a much larger release which was just around the corner. Some of these changes included the addition of special search modifiers that would let users more easily hone searches for their files. Many of these came from Google's search engine and Gmail.

If, in fact, Google Docs allows users to upload other file types for viewing and re-downloading from other locations, it's still a long way from the promise of an integrated, cloud-based storage system. All signs of a GDrive from Google have pointed toward a software component that will allow users to access their Google storage as if it were a local hard disk. Google is also expected to release the service in advance of its Chrome OS, which will make heavy use of files that are stored in the cloud.

Google is testing a new ad format that could shake up the familiar look and feel of a Google search page.

A select group of Google advertisers in the U.S. is being given the opportunity to try out so-called "product ads" that will let them put an awful lot more information in their ad than fits inside the current text-ad boxes on Google search pages. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Google has confirmed the testing, which won't replace text ads but could allow Google to test the effectiveness of a different bidding system for advertisers.

Unlike standard ads, advertisers in this program will bid on the commission they wish to pay Google for actual sales that occur on the advertiser's Web site, rather than what they want to pay when a potential customer clicks on that ad. The ads will be submitted in the same way companies submit free listings to Google Product Search or Google Shopping through Google Base, but unlike those listings Google says it will provide "prominent placements" for ads submitted through this program.

Google Blogoscoped has the full e-mail sent to potential advertisers, which identifies the program as a "beta" and describes the ads as such: "Google product ads will feature product specific information directly in the ad such as price and product image. During the beta program, Google will be testing to identify the most effective ad formats."

A Google representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Now here's one you don't see every day: Wordnik, which launched out of private beta on Monday and states its mission as "discovering all the words and everything about them." Taking the basic premise of a dictionary, Wordnik supplements each entry with Web 2.0's tastiest treats--relevant Flickr images, Twitter search matches, user-contributed tags and comments--and then invites users to add their own words, too.

Calling itself a "project" rather than a company, Wordnik's origins are sort of like a dot-com fairy tale. CEO Erin McKean, then serving as editor-in-chief of Oxford University Press' American dictionaries, was giving a talk at the elite TED conference when she raised an issue for lexicographers--dictionary scientists--that, in her opinion, the digital age hadn't solved yet.

"There are so many more words than dictionaries can handle," McKean said to CNET News about the issue she raised at TED. "There's no program for anyone to go out and try to find all the words. People have been conditioned to be more or less content with what they've got." She has a point: many online dictionary sites are little more than digital replicas of their print predecessors.

As is often the case with TED, some pretty important people were listening in, including Silicon Valley venture capitalist Roger McNamee--now one of the investors in Wordnik, which McKean promptly co-founded with two lexicographers and an engineer. Now the Bay Area-based company has six full-time employees, and is launching with 1.7 million words in its directory.

McKean says she isn't too concerned yet about dealing with the pranksters and vandals who give Wikipedia its more-than-occasional headaches ("people have tended to be well behaved with us, and we're not sure how long that's going to last") and says that copyright issues shouldn't be too much of a problem ("there's about 400 years of precedent in terms of fair use in a dictionary"). Right now the priority is expansion. On the way, McKean said, are smartphone apps, a developer API, and a cleaned-up version of Wordnik for kids to use.

The site's design and depth of information leave a little bit to be desired (it lacks the smooth, words-meet-visuals feel of something like news aggregator Daylife), and McKean said that bringing more interesting and unexpected information to Wordnik is also on the agenda.

But Wordnik faces one of the same concerns that pretty much any information- or search-focused start-up does: what if the likes of Google create a competing product? McKean said that Wordnik's advantage is its team's dedication. "Nobody's going to have as much money as Google," she said, "but nobody's going to be as interested in this as I am and my lexicographer colleagues are."

Now check it out and go look up "bacon."

Google's love-hate relationship with the advertisers that pay its bills could hit another rocky patch following its latest AdWords policy change.

Google announced Thursday night that starting next month it would begin allowing certain companies to purchase advertisements that use trademarks--even ones they don't own--in the text of their ads on Google search results. Previously, Google hadn't allowed anyone but the trademark owner to use a trademark in the text of an ad, but the search giant reversed course, saying "we believe that this change will help both our users and advertisers by reducing the number of overly generic ads that appear across our networks in the U.S."

But the move could anger companies who are already sensitive about the use of their trademarks as keyword triggers in searches, the subject of two lawsuits pending against Google. According to an industry group called the Alliance Against Bait and Click, which includes companies such as 1-800 Contacts and Starwood Hotels, "this (policy change) further exposes the self-interest guiding Google's advertising policies, which permits dishonest marketers to mislead consumers," it said in a statement.

In some ways, the decision makes an awful lot of sense. Some third-party resellers, for example, were not allowed to use the trademark for goods they were authorized to sell in their Google ads if the trademark holder objected.

Google compared the policy shift to turning its ads into the online equivalent of a grocery store ad circular in a Sunday newspaper, where no one raises a trademark eyebrow if Safeway advertises a sale on 12-packs of Coca-Cola. Google said it would limit the use of trademarks in text ads to three types of companies: resellers, component sellers (buy memory for Hewlett-Packard laptops here!), and information providers.

That brings Google's policies in line with those of Yahoo, which allows trademarks to be used in text ads with similar restrictions. In the past, advertisers have been more willing to sue Google over trademark disputes because the search giant said it wouldn't allow trademarks in the text of ads, but such trademarks would appear anyway from time to time on certain ads, said Dave Kelly, a trademark lawyer with Finnegan.

"This policy is better than what they were doing before," Kelly said. "This means there is an editorial policy and the number of misleading ads should be smaller than under their policy before."

Still some groups, such as the Alliance Against Bait and Click, believe it's possible that the move could grant deceptive advertisers looking to trick searchers onto click farms or e-mail harvesting sites an additional weapon to deploy.

For example, a company could theoretically sell just a single iPhone case on its Web site, advertise under searches for "iPhone cases," and redirect ad clicks to sites that mostly sell competitive smartphones or consumer electronics gadgets. Or, it could force a visitor to provide his or her e-mail for more information before revealing that flashy iPhone case.

More money
What's more likely, however, is that companies interested in preserving their brands could be forced to pay more in Google's ad auction process to make sure their legitimate ads appear on those searches.

Winning Google's keyword auction process involves a combination of the maximum amount an advertiser is willing to pay per click as well as an ad quality score. Without the ability to use a trademark in the text of their ads, third-party retailers were forced to write generic ads that likely didn't see as high a click-through rate as ads with the trademark, hurting their quality score.

But if the playing field is leveled on the quality score side of the equation, then the maximum bid has to go up. AdAge reported that branded advertisers now feel they'll have to increase the maximum amount they are willing to pay per click in order to ensure ads with their trademark appear above ads from companies that don't own that trademark.

Financial analysts who follow Google agree. "Advertisers will likely bid more if the ad can have product names and brands that will help drive CTR (click-through rate) conversions," said Ben Schachter of Broadpoint AmTech in a research note Friday. Combined with Google's announcement last week that advertisers in many parts of the world can now bid on keywords that involve trademarks, Schachter said "these two changes will be positive revenue drivers when allowed and into 3Q and beyond, however, we believe trademark holders will undoubtedly, and loudly, raise legal challenges."

Kelly, who has followed issues with Google and trademarks very closely for years, isn't so sure.

"Although the updated policy may not affect those trademark owners who want to sue Google simply because they object to the act of Google selling their trademarks as keywords, it should reduce the amount of litigation over the appearance of Google's keyword-triggered sponsored ads," he said. That's because Google is now responsible for reviewing the content of the ads to make sure trademarks are being used properly.

In what is likely not a coincidence, the decision comes following a quarter in which Google's cost-per-click numbers (the average cost that advertisers are willing to pay for a click) fell for the second-straight quarter while overall click-through rates remained flat. Issues around Google's trademark policies on search keywords have also heated up in recent weeks, with an appeals court's decision to reinstate the Rescuecom case and a new lawsuit filed this week over Google's practice of allowing anyone to bid on search keywords containing trademarks.

Some of Google's partners will hate this decision, and some, such as retailers, will like it. Either way, Google should benefit from the sale of more relevant--and more expensive--advertising.

Should companies be allowed to serve ads based on keywords that are trademarks of competitors?

(Credit: Firepond)

About a month after an appeals court revived a trademark lawsuit over Google's keyword sales, another suit has surfaced in Texas.

Ars Technica spotted Firepond's lawsuit, filed Monday in Texas, against Google over whether Google should be allowed to sell keywords bearing a company's trademark to its competitors. A similar suit involving PC support company Rescuecom was brought back to life in April by an appeals court after initially being dismissed in 2006.

The issue is whether Coke, for example, should be allowed to buy keywords such as Pepsi and place ads for Coke products on searches for Pepsi. Rescuecom and Firepond argue that their respective keywords are an extension of the trademark they have acquired on their brands, and that Google should not be encouraging competitors to violate that trademark by using it to promote their own products. Firepond makes sales management software.

Google is willing to remove a trademark from one of its ads if it's in the text of the ad (Pepsi sucks! Try Coke!), but "we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint," the company says in an FAQ about its trademark policies for AdWords. Its reasoning?

"Accordingly, our trademark policy not to monitor the use of trademarks in the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Ireland aims to provide users with choices relevant to their keywords. At the same time, we investigate trademark violations in ad text both as a courtesy to the trademark owner and to ensure that ads are clear to users." A Google representative declined to comment on the Firepond lawsuit itself, saying the company was still reviewing the complaint.

AdWords is the engine that has made many a Googler rich. The system allows anyone to bid on a given keyword and win placement on the top or right side of a search results page based on a combination of factors such as the size of the maximum bid for that keyword as well as the quality of the ad.

Part of the reason that this system generates the revenue it does is because the results are highly visible; much to the chagrin of a company outbid or outclassed by a competitor for a keyword pertinent to their business. In 2006, Rescuecom tried to make the further argument that not only is this aggravating, it's misleading to consumers who think they are going to learn more about Rescuecom's services when they search for Rescuecom, only to learn about the competition instead if they click on an ad generated by that search. The company will get the chance to make that argument again in the coming months after its suit in New York State was revived by a judge.

For now, the practice continues in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Ireland. But Google has a very different policy in most of the European Union, reaffirming its intention to uphold complaints of the use of trademarks in keywords in prominent EU countries such as France and Germany when it announced an expansion of its trademark policy earlier this month.