Showing posts with label twitcount. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitcount. Show all posts

4 Reasons Why People Don’t Read Your Blog (Backed by Science) | Dramel Notes

Posted On // Leave a Comment
  • TwitCount
  • TwitCount

The human brain is capable of handling 1016 processes per second and yes, it’s perfectly fine if this freaks you out (it scares me too). It’s because of this particular feature that your content has to generate engagement. Our brains won’t focus on something unless it’s going to seem highly useful or very eye-candy, so pushing your articles into your reader’s’ eyes can be quite a challenge.

 

There’s a pretentious term describing how our brains refuse to be rational sometimes and operate faultily instead, because it’s more comfortable – it’s called a cognitive bias. We all have them, no exception – of course, some more than others. What is truly impressive is how we are not even aware of these biases’ existence most of the times; and even when we manage to identify them, it’s still very unlikely to change our mind. Therefore, there are plenty of criteria to be taken into consideration when addressing the mind – we’re dealing with a glorious mess here.

As much as we hate this truth, our decision making processes are more of a black box than a clean, coherent causal chain. It is because our brains love shortcuts that we don’t rationalize our every decision, but rather start from some implicit premises when evaluating, say, a purchase decision. Same happens for every thought process that involves perception – in other words, you may be sending some messages you’re not aware of in your articles that prevent people from returning to your blog. In this article we’ll be analyzing these cognitive phenomena applied to your domain and try to find the some blog content strategy that can be applied to your niche.

 

You Don’t Write Up to the High, Positive Expectation

It does hurt to say, but the more you read meaningless content on the web, the more you expect the next link you click on to give you hands on content. If you’re unlucky enough to be the fourth or fifth and the reader is already bent out of shape, you clearly wouldn’t like to be in the position of disappointing him.

 

The mechanism behind this is quite simple, and we’re not proud of it. Our brains make the same mistake as the gamblers’ do. The more you lose, the more you’re under the impression that you’re actually about to win.

 

Unfortunately, if you don’t focus on answering the questions of your audience against their needs checklist, you’re on the highway to failure. Take the example of Giuseppe Fratoni – he is a digital marketer, which means he knows the bread and butter of content strategy. Unfortunately, this didn’t help him grow a community – because of not delivering content up to people’s expectation. We’re much past the period when clickbait solved any problem.

 

It’s harder to work for content than it was for linkbait and clickbait years ago, because this time there’s no shortcut to get people’s attention. You’ve got to be fair and you’ve got to deliver. Let’s call this Attention Web.

 

You’ll say it’s like flipping coins – you’ve already lost twice, so you think the chances are you’ll win the third time. Actually, that is false – as the odds are 50/50 every time you flip the coin, however much you’ve lost or won. Very often, we neglect probability – we tend to believe that plane trips are more dangerous than car trips, for instance, when the facts clearly contradict us.

 

For instance, one of the easiest ways of making sure that people won’t last too long reading our content is working on analyses that are too in-depth. They require significantly more time reading than your generic blog post, which leads to a high bounce rate.

 

Tl;dr – It’s not unknown that the abbreviation comes from too long; didn’t read and it’s either used at the beginning of a paragraph to inform that reading it entirely will take a while (not quite as much as Tolstoy, but somewhere around there) or a way of mocking people who don’t possess any knowledge on how to effectively write on the web.

 

 

So Wikipedia decided to make a thing out of this, and summarized long articles that people will search to read about in a very tl;dr-friendly way. We’re only looking for the essential information scanning the texts instead of reading them, so this initiative is meant to mock our inherently-developed habit of superficial reading.

 

 

Besides being mocked all over the web, this ‘too long; didn’t read’ issue is a relevant obstacle when trying to convert your audience to visiting more often. Once people believe that your general style requires a lot of time, there’s no turning back.

 

What I’ve learned: Only promise what you can deliver! And don’t make it ‘War and Peace’.

People Don’t Agree with Your Opening Statement

 

Bold points of view are lifesaving. They raise eyebrows and tickle curiosity, while sending the impression of reliability. Which is why people will read the first sentence of your post – unfortunately, after this they realize you’re about to contradict their prior beliefs and leave. Just like that.

 

Let’s take the example of Spectafy. Their first landing page was very successful, according to their own statement – it converted. People liked the idea of their application and the landing page was lucrative.

 

But it’s not in our nature to settle for things – so they wanted more people to convert. Which is why they decided to use sarcasm in order to stimulate productivity. Unfortunately, the success rate was dramatically lower – close to zero, in fact. Because we don’t like being told that we’re wrong, at least not like this. Too bold a statement scares us away. Not because the idea is not good, but because it’s not what we’re there for.

 

If you haven’t managed to persuade your readers in the first 100 words, it’s safe to say you most likely won’t at all. This is because we tend to remember, search for and find more powerful the information that supports our beliefs.

 

It’s hard for the brain to accept new perspectives, because it has to tune the previous life facts to the ones you’re presenting – which takes a lot of will.

 

 

Instead, you may succeed to do the opposite – presenting enough proof to make your idea reliable can trigger a defense mechanism called the backfire effect.

 

 

Don’t worry! Nobody’s safe. From the scientific world to steak recipes, this tendency can sabotage your efforts in ways you couldn’t have foreseen. Take this search on BrandMentions for instance, where I searched for Android and iOS.

 

I have 897 returned results, counting only the ones that have mentioned both the brands. It’s against our biases, it seems, to give up polarized opinion to the detriment of accepting other perspectives.

 

We all have belief biases – this means that when facing a logical argument, we’re more likely to believe it if the conclusion seems more plausible instead of analyzing the supporting evidence.

What I’ve learned: Be crystal clear and give quick previews that make your points of view acceptable, even to people who wouldn’t agree at first.

You’re Too Deep. Seriously, Stop It.

Doesn’t it happen to you to read about something new or gain interest in a new topic and then see it virtually everywhere? If you experienced it at least once, it shouldn’t surprise you that there’s some serious science behind this. An illusion of frequency populates our thoughts. For instance, if you’ve bought a new phone, you’ll tend to notice that a lot of people have the same phone model.

 

And while you’ll think this helps your endeavor, it’s not quite like this. Suppose that you’re lucky enough to write about the topic someone’s recently been interested in – this only means they’ll notice your work, at best. From here to actually reading your content is a lot of work paved with intermediary steps.

 

The picture below is what happens with Slate – and consider they’re lucky. Most of the people who land on your page don’t get through the first paragraph and leave the site for good.

 

You’ve also got to take into consideration that people on the web aren’t really organized. The hyperlinks have made us chaotic in ways that were impossible in terms of brain wiring only a few years ago. Plus, it’s not always going to be your topic the one that’s the most recent interest of someone – so don’t count on that. Rather, the goal would be writing despite that – content so good that makes ignoring impossible.

 

There’s no glory for the underdogs in content marketing.

 

But this comes with its disadvantages as well. Unfortunately, digging too deep into a topic often implies taking a lot of extra risk. We only read in-depth content analyses; we do our homework properly, we’re never out of touch and we can tell you what’s trending from sleep. And yet, there’s nothing easier than losing the interest of your readers.

 

This article on Medium says we’re not supposed to write blog posts that take more than 7 minutes to read.

 

 

Let’s also take into consideration that according to studies, our reading behavior online is a very dissimilar process to paperback reading. It seems that we perceive the content on the web not with the part of the brain responsible for reading, but with the one responsible for images.

 

Thus, we merely scan the content we’re interested in.

 

The second we bookmark a link we forget about it – there are very few of us who actually track back their online activity to see what they found impressive, but maybe just didn’t have the time to read on the spot. What’s rather common is people bookmarking your article. And you don’t want this to happen!

 

Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-bookmark-everything-and-then-never-actually-look-at-my-bookmarks-again

 

There’s a theory addressing the choices we make for now and the ones we make for later – an illustrative experiment showed that when buying food from the supermarket (say chocolate and oranges) we’ll buy more oranges – thinking we’re going to eat healthily. However, when the moment of decision comes, we’re going to pick the chocolate instead of the fruit. Same happens with bookmarks – and Patrick Gant from Thinkitcreative agrees with us on that.

 

Because of the quantity of information we deal with everyday and the very transparent environments that provide us the content, there’s a slim chance that we’d retrace our steps instead of searching for entirely new posts.

 

The thing is, the more complicated you sound, the more people will live under the impression that they need a lot of time to understand your post properly – and, however interesting and vision shifting, it will end up unread.

 

What I’ve learned: Don’t try to sound too smart, deliver something valuable in an intuitive way instead. Make it easy to read!

People Prefer the Status Quo Over Newly Presented Facts

It’s a miracle we get any decisions right, considering how many factors influence our perception without us having a clue about it. For instance, we care more about maintaining our Status Quo (state of facts) than we do about truth; and if you’re saying otherwise, chances are your brain is playing some tricks on you.

 

‘Our mind is fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way.’ Dan Ariely

 

For instance, it’s not like we objectively liked the former Google logo. Admit it, the new one’s more tuned to our expectations, if we’re to think regardless of what we’re used to. It was age-old, and as much as a veteran of the web is acknowledged, the serif font with the typewriter-like g didn’t suit the current image of Google – with a sharp, progressive, minimalist approach. And yet, here we are, complaining for the sake of habit.

 

What I’ve learned: If it’s not imperative to change, innovation for the sake of novelty is the number one enemy of reader loyalty.

 

Conclusion

 

The information technology has changed our lives for good, so says the cliché. From the posts we share without reading to the content we skip because it looks like a block of text rather than something to visually stimulate us, nothing resembles how we read old media. For the nostalgics who think of the good old days while reading this, I stand by the fact that this perspective mutation isn’t necessarily a disaster; not as long as we can prove the same adaptive mechanisms on the web as we did throughout the other organic changes of humankind.

 

Photos: 1, 2, 3.
[Read more]

Google Algorithm Updates vs Stock Market Drops | Dramel Notes

Posted On // Leave a Comment
  • TwitCount
  • TwitCount

Neo: If you’re killed in the matrix, you die here? (The Matrix, 1999)

 

We often make a distinction between the virtual and the real world. We will ask whether something happened online or “actually happened”, as if the online world were a parallel universe in which actions have no impact on our current lives. But the truth could not be further from that. Most of the things we do online can impact our “real”, palpable lives. Our perception and our laws may not have caught up to this fact yet, but reality has. We buy things virtually, we are part of communities that need no physical space to assemble and there are probably married couples out there who have met online.

 

How the Stock Market Works

 

One of the biggest impact the Internet can have on the real world is actually on something that is still more virtual than real: the stock market and stock trading. To better understand this impact, you first need to know, at least at a very basic level, how stock trading works. Companies make their stocks (or shares) available for the public to buy and sell by getting listed on the stock exchange. Traders act, for the most part, like rational economic actors and try to maximize profits by buying stocks which have a high probability of increasing their value (for instance if a company is about to launch a follow-up to a successful product) and selling stocks which have a high probability of decreasing value (for instance if a company is about to face a lot of new competition).

One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells, and both think they are astute.

 

We say that actors are rational “for the most part” because this whole ordeal is largely based on predictions and predictions can be influenced by a variety factors. Aside from the economic factors, decisions to buy or sell can also be influenced by political factors (if the laws in a certain country are about to change or a period of political instability is about to come up), social factors (if a strong social for or against reaction against a certain environmental trend is on the rise), technological factors (if scientists are on the verge of a discovery that might create the market for a new series of products) and so on.

 

Stock Market – The Place Where Economic Perception Is Reality

 

More importantly though, decisions can also be shaped by perceptions. On December 3, 2004, a member of a social activism group called The Yes Men, appeared on BBC. Only that he didn’t appear as himself, but rather pretended to be the spokesperson for Dow Chemical, the second-largest chemical manufacturer in the world. Andy Bichlbaum, half of the Yes Men, talked about the Bhopal disaster, one of the worst chemical disasters in history, which happened at one of Dow’s factories in India during the 80s. As a company spokesperson, Andy apologized on behalf of Dow and vowed to make amends to the community to the tune of $12 billion in reparations. Within less than half an hour from this BBC appearance, Dow’s market share price fell 4.24%, wiping $2 billion off its market value.

So here is something that never actually happened, but only appeared to have happened, creating a real-life effect – and quite a major one for that matter. It was the Yes Men still who within hours of Andy’s appearance on the BBC issued a disclaimer about the hoax. There is no telling how much more Dow’s stocks could have plummeted if they had not issued the clarification. Because to the world at large, helped in no small part by the use of BBC as the channel, the message was true. The lesson here is that the stock market is a very volatile phenomenon and it should not be surprising that it can be influenced by “virtual” events.

 

It should come as no surprise then that one of the events with the biggest impacts in the online world could also influence stock prices for some companies. And here we would like to have a closer look at Google’s algorithm updates. Considering the world of difference a Google ranking makes, is it plausible that the effects of an algorithm change ripple beyond the results page? There are 2 actors to consider here: Google itself and the companies that are ranked by Google’s search engine.

 

Can Google Updates Sink the Stock Market?

 

For Google, there does seem to be a correlation between major algorithm updates (such as Panda or Penguin) and slight increases in stock value. Since the increases happened shortly after the updates, there is also a possibility of a coincidence, given that at that point there would have been no way of accurately estimating the impact on company profits. At the same time, it is worth remembering what we mentioned earlier: not all decisions in the stock market are based on tested results; some are based on the potential of winnings. If tech-savvy traders sensed that there might be some significant positive changes in the Google revenues following the updates, a hunch would have been enough to get them more interested in Google stocks. Because Google relies on AdWords to make its profits, it would make sense that when the algorithm changes, more people become interested in getting AdWords to stay ahead of the curve. The specter of uncertainty makes people more prone to invest in things that will safeguard them from the unknown.

The flipside of the coin is that companies using Google to promote their business are also affected by the algorithm updates, but in a more direct way. Depending on the updates, companies may win or lose online visibility.

Some companies lost as much as 75% of their visibility, while others gained as much as 500% . But is this enough to create a stock market effect?

Quite possibly, since perception is as good as reality when it comes to stock trading. One example where this seems very likely is Overstock, whose shares dropped steeply right after a Google update. A 33% decline in search visibility in May 2015 is correlated with a subsequent 11% drop in earnings and a 17% drop in stock price, as seen in the image below.
Patrick Byrne, Overstock’s CEO, in a press release announcing the company’s results for the third semester of this year, declared that the loss they were facing was due to some Google’s changes.

 

“We are experiencing some slowing of our overall revenue growth which we believe is due in part to changes that Google made in its natural search engine algorithms, to which we are responding.

(…)

Third of the problem was the Google search change, as it affects everybody. It affected – it was a little bit different this year than it was in previous years in some respects in who’d help and who’d hurt. But we think we’ve already learned our way out of that.”

 

 

Then again, correlation does not prove causation and it is quite obvious companies have an incentive (or at the very least a bias) to find explanations for such drops in external factors.

 

Penalties –  Stock Market Correlation Examples 

Still, the correlations cannot be denied and the very least they keep the discussion going. Expedia’s penalty was a quite controversial subject around two years ago. Whether the big travel company was penalized due to unnatural links or it was the case of a negative attack (both hypotheses were brought into discussion) on thing is sure: they had a massive drop around January 2014. As you can see from the screenshot below, the drop is quite dramatic and the major travel website,

Expedia, seems to have lost 25% of their search visibility in Google, according to Searchmetrics.

Moreover, the drop was not visible just in the search engine but also in Expedia’s stocks, coincidence or not, exactly in the same period of time.

 

Same thing happened to eBay which was hit by a manual penalty caused be Panda 4.0 update somewhere in the spring of 2014.

A similar drop was reflected in eBay’s shares as well.

As mentioned above, correlation does not prove causation and usually  companies find explanations for drops in external factors.

JC Penney was penalized in February 2011 because they were suspected of buying links to rank better in Google.

Many of their pages got degraded from ranking in the first page of Google (for 90 days) and if you look at stock prices for that time frame you can see an ever so slight slump between February and March.

 

At the same time, there are other examples which seem to stray from the narrative, such as BMW.

In February 2006 the company was accused of using cloaking and the entire site was removed for 3 days.

However, this does not reflect in any way in the stock market prices from around that time, which seem largely unaffected in February and increase steeply in March.

 

There are, of course, explanations and interpretations which might also support the theory so far. For instance, it is entirely possible that penalties were, in fact, applied earlier, and the beginning of February only marks the time Matt Cutts acknowledged welcoming BMW back on the web. This would definitely fit in with the chart. There are also other possible, not-web-related events that may have happened in the spring of 2006 that could account for the spike increase in February.

 

Conclusion

 

The thesis here is not necessarily that online (or, more generally, “virtual”) events supersede the real ones, rather that they have a direct, quantifiable impact on them and that what is “real” and what is “virtual” is often subject to change and there is no real dichotomy here.Yet, even if we cannot do anything more than assuming, there is still an interesting theme to debate, whether there is indeed a strong correlation between stock market trends and Google updates.

 

 

 

[Read more]

TwitCount – The Twitter Share Counts Alternative | Dramel Notes

Posted On // Leave a Comment
  • TwitCount
  • TwitCount

As you may have already found out or experienced on your site, Twitter share counts are no longer updating on the share buttons starting with the 20th of November this year. This means that all share buttons out there that relied on the Twitter share count endpoint are no longer providing share counts. This includes Twitter’s own official tweet button. Basically, Twitter seems to be de-emphasizing one of its defining metrics: the share counts. The impact the big social network’s decision has on the digital marketing world and therefore the consequences that reflects on all our websites cannot be overlooked.

 

And as the saying goes ” get mad and then get over it” (and start do something about it, we may add), we at cognitiveSEO began looking for an efficient solution to this matter. We believe that Twitter’s share counts are highly important for every webmaster or digital marketer who wants to know what happens to his/her website and therefore the business is working for. As a result, we started to do what we know best: put or minds, determination and cups of coffee together in order to find the best solution to get the Twitter share counts back.

We launched TwitCount.com the Twitter Share Counts Alternative!

 

Why Did Twitter Decide to Get Rid of the Share Counts?

 

The real reasons why Twitter decided to give up offering share counts info may not be accessible to us. What we do have access to is their official announcement where they are giving some explanation for the deprecation of the Tweet count feature and also the announcement of a new design for the Tweet and follow buttons. As Twitter’s blog post title says, this is a hard decisions for a sustainable platform, letting us the impression that the online social network took this decision based on some technical and financial reasons.

 

The explanation given by Twitter was that the shares they are offering rely on a different database that the one they are going to use from now on.

The choices were to deprecate the feature, or rebuild it on a more modern tech stack.

And, as rebuilding has its own costs, (including work on other features, “more impactful” as Twitter says), the well-known social network decided to drop the feature altogether.

 

After having offered this kind of data for years now,  Twitter tried to downplay the importance of share counts, saying that the count does not reflect the impact of conversation about content as it doesn’t count replies, quote Tweets, variants of URLs.  Nor does it reflect the fact that some people tweeting these URLs might have many more followers than others. It’s true indeed that this kind of info is not shown directly, yet a lot of precious info about all this can be drawn based on the share counts.

 

 

Nonetheless, Twitter says that they will not let us ride our bicycles with no handlebars and they offer us a recommendation to get our share counts back: Gnip’s full archive counts. Great so far, yet, you need to know that Gnip is a paid social media API aggregation company. Long story short, the alternative they are offering is a paid one. After offering the share counts for free for all these years, switching to a paid and a bit complicated service in order to get what we are used to get free of charge is kind of unwelcome.  Of course, for larger publishers  it’s very likely that nothing will change. Those companies and publishers will continue to be able to publish and glean share counts from share buttons and article links in real-time. Yet, it’s smaller publishers and individual sites that will be affected.

 

How Is Twitter’s Decision Impacting the Digital Marketing World

 

Reactions to Twitter’s decisions were immediate and, as you would expect, there were mostly negative ones. Ironically or not, Twitter was the main playground for manifesting the discontent against the social network’s decision of not showing counts anymore. Under  #saveoursharecounts  articles, complains and even petitions were submitted. You don’t have to linger too long on the content posted here to understand that the overall atmosphere is not the most cheerful.

 

However, you might say that this is just the crowd’s reaction to the change and is not to be taken into consideration when thinking of the long-term consequences. Let’s take a look at a study  to see whether this change would lead to a decline in sharing activity and share of voice for Twitter.  In the mentioned study there were pulled together and analyzed sharing activity data generated across 300,000+ sites that are powered by Shareaholic’s Content Amplification Platform. These sites collectively reach over 450 million unique visitors each month.

 

As you can see in the screenshot below, it seems that sharing activity to Twitter has declined by 11.28% since November 20th until the beginning of December, when the study was conducted.

Taken from blog.shareaholic.com

Not only the sharing activity overall will be affected by the lack of counts. Let’s take our case; we are a third-party app developer that offers within the cognitiveSEO tool the Content Visibility module, where users can take an in-depth look at their market’s social media activity, effortlessly revealing their content strategy as well as their competitors’. Without having access to the share counts, we cannot offer our subscribers a lot of data and statistics regarding their Twitter’s social footprint.

And since social media is one of the most important distribution channels in any online marketing strategy, tracking and analyzing which strategy provides the best results is of paramount importance.

You may also be a blogger and since your Tweet button won’t show visitors how many times your posts have been shared, that will lead to less interaction and therefore fewer tweets, as shown in the study above. Not to say how hard it will be to decide which type of content works better and on what type of public. It is true that you have other social platforms available but there are niches, like the SEO niche for instance, where Twitter is the main “yard”.

Moreover, if you’re a digital marketing specialist who offers consultancy for emerging brands, you will need the Social Proof that Twitter offered. You will need to show how popular you or other sources/content/people are with the online masses. Further, from the social proof’s point of view, it will be even harder for you to identify your client’s main competitors, their most successful content or get an idea of their online  marketing strategy.

TwitCount- The Free Fix That Gives your Twitter Counts Back

 

Being intrigued by Twitter’s decision, as announced at the beginning at the article, we’ve spent our last weeks working on a solution for Twitter’s decision to eliminate counts.

We are happy to share with you our latest work, TwitCount, Twitter share counts alternative or, simply stated, the free fix for Twitter’s decision to deactivate share counts.

That’s right, it’s free and available for anyone. Although we’ve invested a lot of time and work in developing this solution,  we were motivated by our users’ feedback concerning this matter but also by our own frustration and this is why we decided to offer a free service that anyone could benefit from.

TwitCount is easy to use and gives you exactly what you need: your Tweet counts back. It works like a widget that you need to place on your website in order to get the counter displayed near your Tweet button. After you add the TwitCount widget on your site we will start doing API calls to the official API in order to count the URL mentions on the fly. Leave the geeky stuff to us; all you need to do is connect your Twitter account to allow us to do the calls.

 

What you will need to do in order to see your counts on your pages is to place a button code to your website. You will be given a code that you will need to copy/paste, replacing the twitter button code. Counts will start appearing in maximum 1 hour. Starting the day you add the new button, all new pages will have complete counts data. Yet, old pages may show incomplete counts due to API limitation that allow us to show information for the tweets in the last week or so.  The code that you will need to place on your website will be similar to the one below.

 

We don’t want to burden you with too many technical details so the important thing is that we’ve found a fix so you can easily get you twitter counts back. We’ve tested the widget on our own blog and it seem to be working just fine. Below you have a preview on how the TwitCount button will be appearing on your pages.

All you need to do is log in with your Twitter account, access: http://twitcount.com and and the shares will follow.

Not only will you get the share counts for any page you wish for but you will also get extra benefits. TwitCount will provide you with info about your most shared pages, it will let you identify the most active Twitter fans and track Twitter shares statistics about your site. All these benefits along with the main functionality: showing the share counts.

 

With no further introduction, we invite you to add TwitCount to your website and share with us your opinions on it. This app is not owned, associated or partnered with Twitter and the service is still in beta. Therefore, we would be more than glad if you shared your thoughts with us or if you sent your feedback.

[Read more]