Google Caffeine is an "under the hood" development in the Google search engine algorithm that will augment (slightly) how sites rank on Google's search engine results pages (SERP). The addition of Google Caffeine means that your current website search engine optimization (SEO) may become less effective and you may lose or gain position in search engine results for certain keywords. Google Caffeine is not yet integrated into the standard algorithm, but you can observe where your website and other websites stand in 'Caffeine-induced' results by visiting the Google Caffeine test site, http://www2.sandbox.google.com
Google "Caffeine", the new search engine improves the index size, the speed of the queries and most importantly, changes the value of search engine rankings.
In a post on Webmaster Central Blog, Google notified the world that the next Google search engine was ready for testing.
My first impressions about Google "Caffeine" has been pretty good. Search results in both new and old Google come back lightning quick. I have to take Google's word on the fact that the new search engine is a few milliseconds quicker on almost every search I did (one tie).
I also have to take their word on numbers of results. I am seeing sometimes as many as 10 times the search results in the new Google. I'll assume Google knows how many results it has. Interestingly when I did a search for things like "Online pharmacy", the new Google returned fewer results than the old one. This tells me that the new Google is smarter at finding fake websites and de-indexing them
The results are what makes Google so popular and will be the true test of how good this new engine is. In my tests, the new Google pulls significantly different results than the old Google. For what I was searching for (my name, people I knew, events, computer hardware) the results were significantly better. In fact, it looks like the search keywords have become much bigger a factor than before. I'm seeing smaller sites rise to the top more overall.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) specialists are going to have to go on a whole new formula for getting their clients to the top...and who knows exactly how this new Google search algorithm works? SEO people are going to have to start nailing down the new rules to Pagerank to keep their customers on top.
Finally, how does it compare to Bing?
Not too bad in my tests. It is certainly faster as well. I've been a Google person for the last 6 years and I am not seeing anything bad in the new Google or good in the new Bing that will change that.
Speaking of making a difference, it would be nice if some developer would add this new search to the Safari/Firefox browser search bars. That would really boost my testing capabilities. Any takers?
Is Google Changing the PageRank Algorithm?
Has Google Changed it's PageRank Algorithm?
The latest news around the blogosphere is that Google PageRanks of large sites have been hurt. Sites penalised are as follows:
Here is a list that I gathered with big blogs that supposedly lost PR on this issue:
■Engadget (from 7 to 5)
■AutoBlog (from 6 to 4)
■Problogger (from 6 to 4)
■Copyblogger (from 6 to 4)
■Search Engine Journal (from 7 to 4)
■Quick Online Tips (from 6 to 3)
■Search Engine Roundtable (from 7 to 4)
■Blog Herald (from 6 to 4)
■Weblog Tools Collection (from 6 to 4)
■JohnTP (from 6 to 4)
■Coolest Gadgets (from 5 to 3)
Update: It looks like mainstream websites that were selling links were also penalized:
■Washington Post (from 7 to 5)
■Washington Times (from 6 to 4)
■Charlotte Observer (from 6 to 4)
■Forbes.com (from 7 to 5)
■SFGate.com (from 7 to 5)
■Sun Times (from 7 to 5)
■New Scientist (from 7 to 5)
■Seattle Times (from 6 to 4)
Andy Beard thought the drop was because of text selling which was reported about a week or so ago. This turns out not to be the case.
Techcrunch reported that Google didn't drop the page ranks because of the selling of text links, but because of link farms. Links farms are where each site in the network provides hundreds of outgoing links on each page of the blog to other blogs in the network, in some cases creating tens, even hundred of thousands of cross links.
This all comes a week after the linking characteristics of Techcrunch was analysed. Where it was reported that 1/3 of all Techcrunch outgoing links where to related Techcrunch sites. Hence, link farms do explain why the Techcrunch page rank hasnt changed, but the Crunchbase ranking is now at 0.
These changes will affect a lot of blog networks that survive on text link ads and related sales that depend on strong Google page ranks. A drop from a PR7 to PR4 should really affect traffic too heavily but it will make the tough job of selling ads much tougher. In the coming months and years I think we will see a lot of small blog networks starting to struggle and trying to find another way to survive.
About 1 months ago now I saw a decrease from a PR3 to a PR2 for one of my site and I found it difficult to work out why, and about a month ago when Google announced that selling text link ads would bring in a punishment, I finally found out why.
So, why the decrease? As I wait to research on the decrease, there are many reasons why Google may be changing it's PageRank algorithm.
Paid Linking : The easy excuse is that they’re targeting paid links, but not all sites which experienced the drop sell or buy links.
Mass Linking : Do we link out to too many sites via Blog Rolls? Does Linkbait just result in TOO MANY links, even if they are natural. Do blog networks use influential linking to their advantage? I think PageRank has been spread too thin and Google is changing its PageRank formula to address the mass publishing which has taken place over the past 2 years.
Devalue PageRank : PageRank is seen by many as the end all value of a web site. Our PageRank dropped but we are receiving more Google search traffic than ever. PageRank does not define site rankings in Google or traffic and it should not be mistaken as so.
The latest news around the blogosphere is that Google PageRanks of large sites have been hurt. Sites penalised are as follows:
Here is a list that I gathered with big blogs that supposedly lost PR on this issue:
■Engadget (from 7 to 5)
■AutoBlog (from 6 to 4)
■Problogger (from 6 to 4)
■Copyblogger (from 6 to 4)
■Search Engine Journal (from 7 to 4)
■Quick Online Tips (from 6 to 3)
■Search Engine Roundtable (from 7 to 4)
■Blog Herald (from 6 to 4)
■Weblog Tools Collection (from 6 to 4)
■JohnTP (from 6 to 4)
■Coolest Gadgets (from 5 to 3)
Update: It looks like mainstream websites that were selling links were also penalized:
■Washington Post (from 7 to 5)
■Washington Times (from 6 to 4)
■Charlotte Observer (from 6 to 4)
■Forbes.com (from 7 to 5)
■SFGate.com (from 7 to 5)
■Sun Times (from 7 to 5)
■New Scientist (from 7 to 5)
■Seattle Times (from 6 to 4)
Andy Beard thought the drop was because of text selling which was reported about a week or so ago. This turns out not to be the case.
Techcrunch reported that Google didn't drop the page ranks because of the selling of text links, but because of link farms. Links farms are where each site in the network provides hundreds of outgoing links on each page of the blog to other blogs in the network, in some cases creating tens, even hundred of thousands of cross links.
This all comes a week after the linking characteristics of Techcrunch was analysed. Where it was reported that 1/3 of all Techcrunch outgoing links where to related Techcrunch sites. Hence, link farms do explain why the Techcrunch page rank hasnt changed, but the Crunchbase ranking is now at 0.
These changes will affect a lot of blog networks that survive on text link ads and related sales that depend on strong Google page ranks. A drop from a PR7 to PR4 should really affect traffic too heavily but it will make the tough job of selling ads much tougher. In the coming months and years I think we will see a lot of small blog networks starting to struggle and trying to find another way to survive.
About 1 months ago now I saw a decrease from a PR3 to a PR2 for one of my site and I found it difficult to work out why, and about a month ago when Google announced that selling text link ads would bring in a punishment, I finally found out why.
So, why the decrease? As I wait to research on the decrease, there are many reasons why Google may be changing it's PageRank algorithm.
Paid Linking : The easy excuse is that they’re targeting paid links, but not all sites which experienced the drop sell or buy links.
Mass Linking : Do we link out to too many sites via Blog Rolls? Does Linkbait just result in TOO MANY links, even if they are natural. Do blog networks use influential linking to their advantage? I think PageRank has been spread too thin and Google is changing its PageRank formula to address the mass publishing which has taken place over the past 2 years.
Devalue PageRank : PageRank is seen by many as the end all value of a web site. Our PageRank dropped but we are receiving more Google search traffic than ever. PageRank does not define site rankings in Google or traffic and it should not be mistaken as so.
Link Building to Increase Website Traffic
How to Increase Website Traffic
Do you offer free promotions and monthly contests for new members? No matter how many bells & whistles your site has, all of this is virtually worthless if you cannot drive traffic to your website. Building links to your website is one of the smartest things a webmaster can do to establish a solid web presence. You will have direct traffic as a result of people clicking on the links, and indirect traffic from partner sites with higher rankings at the major search engines.
As you might already know, Google uses a system called link popularity and link reputation to determine a site's relevance and position in the search rankings. The mantra stands: the more links you have leading to you on other web pages, the higher your site’s ranking. Link reputation, on the other hand, means how important the incoming links are to your webpage. If you have your website link at a Professional Dog Trade Show site with 200,000 monthly visitors, you will have a higher link reputation than if you had it posted on Sally's Personal Dog Page with 10 visitors a month. In essence, the more traffic your "affiliate" sites have, the more illustrious your link reputation and the higher rankings you will achieve.
Posting your links to any website is not the premise here. Since search engines decipher from the most relevant results, websites with your link must be on the same topic of interest as yours. Suppose Bill Smith searches for "Ultimate Championship Fighting". The first group of relevant sites would be the one with the most links from sites about Ultimate Fighting. Plus, it is not often you see a Woodworking site linking to a Porsche appreciation page. Optimizing your website with the keywords Ultimate Championship Fighting and affiliating with related fighting pages will nail you a lot more traffic, leading to higher link popularity. So go ahead - become affiliated with related websites (preferably the highest ranking ones if you can) and get your link posted on their pages for higher traffic.
Do you offer free promotions and monthly contests for new members? No matter how many bells & whistles your site has, all of this is virtually worthless if you cannot drive traffic to your website. Building links to your website is one of the smartest things a webmaster can do to establish a solid web presence. You will have direct traffic as a result of people clicking on the links, and indirect traffic from partner sites with higher rankings at the major search engines.
As you might already know, Google uses a system called link popularity and link reputation to determine a site's relevance and position in the search rankings. The mantra stands: the more links you have leading to you on other web pages, the higher your site’s ranking. Link reputation, on the other hand, means how important the incoming links are to your webpage. If you have your website link at a Professional Dog Trade Show site with 200,000 monthly visitors, you will have a higher link reputation than if you had it posted on Sally's Personal Dog Page with 10 visitors a month. In essence, the more traffic your "affiliate" sites have, the more illustrious your link reputation and the higher rankings you will achieve.
Posting your links to any website is not the premise here. Since search engines decipher from the most relevant results, websites with your link must be on the same topic of interest as yours. Suppose Bill Smith searches for "Ultimate Championship Fighting". The first group of relevant sites would be the one with the most links from sites about Ultimate Fighting. Plus, it is not often you see a Woodworking site linking to a Porsche appreciation page. Optimizing your website with the keywords Ultimate Championship Fighting and affiliating with related fighting pages will nail you a lot more traffic, leading to higher link popularity. So go ahead - become affiliated with related websites (preferably the highest ranking ones if you can) and get your link posted on their pages for higher traffic.
Google Caffeine: Google's New Search Engine Index
Is Google Caffeine Faster?
Microsoft has recently unveiled their new search engine, Bing. And with the recent announcement that Microsoft's Bing is going to soon power the Yahoo organic search results, Google needed to do something to keep their market share of search.
Google has unveiled a new test version of their search engine, which is being called "Caffeine". This is being touted as the "next generation of search".
Google's Matt Cutts said, on the Google Webmaster Central blog that they're very interested in feedback:
"Right now, we only want feedback on the differences between Google's current search results and our new system. We're also interested in higher-level feedback ("These types of sites seem to rank better or worse in the new system") in addition to "This specific site should or shouldn't rank for this query." Engineers will be reading the feedback, but we won't have the cycles to send replies."
By letting the public test the new version of Google search (which is noticeably without the Google AdWords ads), Google is able to use the public as their reviewers: and typically Google's best critics will reveal issues that need to be addressed. If you are testing out the new version of Google, and you find a search result that is not to your liking, there is a "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link at the bottom of the search results page.
What is different between the old version of Google (what we currently see at www.google.com) and this new "Google Caffeine" version of Google? Some are saying that this new version is much faster than the older version of Google. Mashable's conclusion is that "This search is not only faster, but in some instances in our few tests, seems more capable of producing real-time results."
One of the claims of Google Caffeine is that it does a better job at including recent search results. Let's take a look at a recent search phrase, one that Google most likely would not have indexed a few days ago, and look compare the results. One of the "trending topics" on Twitter as I write this is "RIP Eunice Kennedy". So, let's use this keyword phrase as a test.
On Google Caffeine there appears to be a search result that was indexed 25 minutes ago. Google does not typically show a "cached" version of recent search results.
And on the "normal" Google search results, the search results appear to be almost exactly the same:
In fact, what is interesting is that both versions of Google are currently indexing Twitter statuses from one hour ago or even sooner. I honestly expected that this new Google Caffeine version would be indexing Twitter statuses much faster than one hour ago. So, let's see if this is the case. I searched for this phrase on both Google Caffeine and on the "normal" Google: [site:twitter.com "RIP Eunice Kennedy"].
Google Caffeine is not indexing as many web pages as the "normal" Google search, while the timeliness of the search results appears to be about the same. There are "tweets" from Twitter.com that show up in the Google search results (on both the Caffeine and on Google.com) as quickly as 10 minutes ago. A quick test on another trending topic on Twitter reveals the same results on both, a search for this shows Google is about 21 minutes behind: [site:twitter.com "Social Media Pillows"]
What about comprehensiveness? I have tested many searches with on both Google Caffeine and on Google.com and am not noticing any better indexing (or indexing of more pages) on several websites I have tested. I used the "site:" command on both and found that on some searches Google Caffeine is indexing more pages.
But on other "site:" searches, there are more pages indexed on Google.com. So, I'm not convinced (yet) that this new Google Caffeine is more comprehensive. In fact, the old Google.com has more pages indexed on Twitter (site:twitter.com) than Google Caffeine.
What about relevancy? I tested several search results, including those that included city names and specific "local searches" and I'm not seeing much of a difference at this time. So, the jury is still out: Google Caffeine appears to be faster than "old Google", but the other changes that have been made to Google Caffeine are not really that noticeable.
Microsoft has recently unveiled their new search engine, Bing. And with the recent announcement that Microsoft's Bing is going to soon power the Yahoo organic search results, Google needed to do something to keep their market share of search.
Google has unveiled a new test version of their search engine, which is being called "Caffeine". This is being touted as the "next generation of search".
Google's Matt Cutts said, on the Google Webmaster Central blog that they're very interested in feedback:
"Right now, we only want feedback on the differences between Google's current search results and our new system. We're also interested in higher-level feedback ("These types of sites seem to rank better or worse in the new system") in addition to "This specific site should or shouldn't rank for this query." Engineers will be reading the feedback, but we won't have the cycles to send replies."
By letting the public test the new version of Google search (which is noticeably without the Google AdWords ads), Google is able to use the public as their reviewers: and typically Google's best critics will reveal issues that need to be addressed. If you are testing out the new version of Google, and you find a search result that is not to your liking, there is a "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link at the bottom of the search results page.
What is different between the old version of Google (what we currently see at www.google.com) and this new "Google Caffeine" version of Google? Some are saying that this new version is much faster than the older version of Google. Mashable's conclusion is that "This search is not only faster, but in some instances in our few tests, seems more capable of producing real-time results."
One of the claims of Google Caffeine is that it does a better job at including recent search results. Let's take a look at a recent search phrase, one that Google most likely would not have indexed a few days ago, and look compare the results. One of the "trending topics" on Twitter as I write this is "RIP Eunice Kennedy". So, let's use this keyword phrase as a test.
On Google Caffeine there appears to be a search result that was indexed 25 minutes ago. Google does not typically show a "cached" version of recent search results.
And on the "normal" Google search results, the search results appear to be almost exactly the same:
In fact, what is interesting is that both versions of Google are currently indexing Twitter statuses from one hour ago or even sooner. I honestly expected that this new Google Caffeine version would be indexing Twitter statuses much faster than one hour ago. So, let's see if this is the case. I searched for this phrase on both Google Caffeine and on the "normal" Google: [site:twitter.com "RIP Eunice Kennedy"].
Google Caffeine is not indexing as many web pages as the "normal" Google search, while the timeliness of the search results appears to be about the same. There are "tweets" from Twitter.com that show up in the Google search results (on both the Caffeine and on Google.com) as quickly as 10 minutes ago. A quick test on another trending topic on Twitter reveals the same results on both, a search for this shows Google is about 21 minutes behind: [site:twitter.com "Social Media Pillows"]
What about comprehensiveness? I have tested many searches with on both Google Caffeine and on Google.com and am not noticing any better indexing (or indexing of more pages) on several websites I have tested. I used the "site:" command on both and found that on some searches Google Caffeine is indexing more pages.
But on other "site:" searches, there are more pages indexed on Google.com. So, I'm not convinced (yet) that this new Google Caffeine is more comprehensive. In fact, the old Google.com has more pages indexed on Twitter (site:twitter.com) than Google Caffeine.
What about relevancy? I tested several search results, including those that included city names and specific "local searches" and I'm not seeing much of a difference at this time. So, the jury is still out: Google Caffeine appears to be faster than "old Google", but the other changes that have been made to Google Caffeine are not really that noticeable.
Lesser Known Method of Blog Promotion
Days ago, when i do walked by on Blogcatalog to find some good news and also to promote my blog. I found this useful thread. It's all about a lesser known method of Blog Promotion. If you interested, read it now!
Written by BlogBadly, taken from one of his discussion on Blog Catalog (with necessary edit):
Whenever someone makes a "SEVEN EASY TIPS FOR BLOG PROMOTION/PR INCREASE" post anywhere, I rarely see adding your posts to blog carnivals.
Blog carnivals are usually held by one blog. In them, the owner reads submissions and decides which ones to put in a post about the carnival. About 5-10 entries are picked for each post. The owners of the carnivals generally don't expect a post back to them - maybe just a trackback - so it's basically a free link to your blog. It can attract readers too. It's not spammy, too, as all of the posts are related in the same category (business, satire, family, pets, etc.)
It's really easy to do: just go to blogcarnival.com, sign up, look for some carnivals that match your blog category, and submit. You can also run your own carnival if you want.
Blog carnivals are actually quite good promotion methods - they won't harm you, at least. Unless you get dizzy on the merry-go-round. Ha. I made a bad joke.
And on a quick note, Newsvine.com (a news site where people tag news/opinion/other articles and post them on their own page) gives a free backlink if you submit your own site (dunno if you guys do that. I don't see any penalties for it). It also appeared on my Technorati blog feedback with an authority of 50-100. It's another option if you have a news blog or just have a few news posts.
Mytheory opinion: Actually, some bloggers have known about this method of blog promotion through blogcarnival, and they like it because it does drive traffic to their blog (if u have great post of course). So, i suggest you to make real good content first if you want to submit it to carnaval then.
Written by BlogBadly, taken from one of his discussion on Blog Catalog (with necessary edit):
Whenever someone makes a "SEVEN EASY TIPS FOR BLOG PROMOTION/PR INCREASE" post anywhere, I rarely see adding your posts to blog carnivals.
Blog carnivals are usually held by one blog. In them, the owner reads submissions and decides which ones to put in a post about the carnival. About 5-10 entries are picked for each post. The owners of the carnivals generally don't expect a post back to them - maybe just a trackback - so it's basically a free link to your blog. It can attract readers too. It's not spammy, too, as all of the posts are related in the same category (business, satire, family, pets, etc.)
It's really easy to do: just go to blogcarnival.com, sign up, look for some carnivals that match your blog category, and submit. You can also run your own carnival if you want.
Blog carnivals are actually quite good promotion methods - they won't harm you, at least. Unless you get dizzy on the merry-go-round. Ha. I made a bad joke.
And on a quick note, Newsvine.com (a news site where people tag news/opinion/other articles and post them on their own page) gives a free backlink if you submit your own site (dunno if you guys do that. I don't see any penalties for it). It also appeared on my Technorati blog feedback with an authority of 50-100. It's another option if you have a news blog or just have a few news posts.
Mytheory opinion: Actually, some bloggers have known about this method of blog promotion through blogcarnival, and they like it because it does drive traffic to their blog (if u have great post of course). So, i suggest you to make real good content first if you want to submit it to carnaval then.
Nofollow Links - Advantages & Disadvantages
Nofollow Links - The Good side and the Bad side
Blog commenting is one of the best way of getting backlinks to our sites/blog. And if you frequently gather backlink by that way (blog commenting) you must be familiar with Dofollow or nofollow links attribute. You may be wonder why the webmasters (Matt Cutts and Jason Shellen) design nofollow attributes, because all we know is nofollow link attributes doesn't give our page any reputation (such as PR calculation). But recently i found why nofollow link attributes is so damn important for both web owner or the webmasters who want to gather backlinks from it.
:: Good side / Advantages
1.It prevents comment spamming.
Remember that most of people who want to gather link juice, always do it by leaving poor quality comment(s) to blog which use dofollow attributes, they think it is wasting time to leave a comment on nofollow blog. So, nofollow blog have smaller chance to receive comment spam.
2.You don't want to pass reputation on to a website.
For example you write a post about how people doing spam comment, and you provide link that point to website which offer automatic comment service. Anyhow you don't want to give any reputation to that kind of website, so you can use nofollow attributes to that link.
3.To be Trusted by Major Search Engine
If you pretty smart on putting nofollow attributes to particular link on your blog/website you will be trusted by major search engine. For example you put nofollow tags to website which is not trusted by major search engines, major search engine will consider your blog as a trusted sites. Besides by activate nofollow attributes on particular area on your blog you can avoid comment spamming, and it is good for your web content since search engine doesn't like blog with many comment spam.
:: Bad Side / Disadvantages
1.Less chance to get comment by other blogger
Since most people will only comment on dofollow blog to get some reputation credit to their page, your nofollow blog will be forgotten by them. And it will slightly affect your total number of comments.
2.It is more harder to get any link juice to your websites/blog
Let say you want to gather backlink with blog commenting technique, if you really want to gather reputation credit to your websites, you have to leave it on dofollow blog, thus your task become more harder, besides making high quality comment to be approved by the blog owner, you have to search the real dofollow blog with the same topic with yours.
::. Some suggestions
1.Be smart on placing nofollow attributes to particular links/area
Don't activate nofollow attributes to the whole area of your websites. Try to focus on comment section or particular links which pointing to the website you don't want to give any reputation credits. Also, you can activate dofollow attribute once the comment section of you blog get more crowded or begin to make some discussion between you and the commenter.
2.When leave comment don't bother about nofollow or dofollow attributes
Yea, why i suggest you to not bother about nofollow or dofollow attributes when we leave comment on other blog? Because our backlinks will looked more natural, contains dofollow links and nofollow links as well.
Blog commenting is one of the best way of getting backlinks to our sites/blog. And if you frequently gather backlink by that way (blog commenting) you must be familiar with Dofollow or nofollow links attribute. You may be wonder why the webmasters (Matt Cutts and Jason Shellen) design nofollow attributes, because all we know is nofollow link attributes doesn't give our page any reputation (such as PR calculation). But recently i found why nofollow link attributes is so damn important for both web owner or the webmasters who want to gather backlinks from it.
:: Good side / Advantages
1.It prevents comment spamming.
Remember that most of people who want to gather link juice, always do it by leaving poor quality comment(s) to blog which use dofollow attributes, they think it is wasting time to leave a comment on nofollow blog. So, nofollow blog have smaller chance to receive comment spam.
2.You don't want to pass reputation on to a website.
For example you write a post about how people doing spam comment, and you provide link that point to website which offer automatic comment service. Anyhow you don't want to give any reputation to that kind of website, so you can use nofollow attributes to that link.
3.To be Trusted by Major Search Engine
If you pretty smart on putting nofollow attributes to particular link on your blog/website you will be trusted by major search engine. For example you put nofollow tags to website which is not trusted by major search engines, major search engine will consider your blog as a trusted sites. Besides by activate nofollow attributes on particular area on your blog you can avoid comment spamming, and it is good for your web content since search engine doesn't like blog with many comment spam.
:: Bad Side / Disadvantages
1.Less chance to get comment by other blogger
Since most people will only comment on dofollow blog to get some reputation credit to their page, your nofollow blog will be forgotten by them. And it will slightly affect your total number of comments.
2.It is more harder to get any link juice to your websites/blog
Let say you want to gather backlink with blog commenting technique, if you really want to gather reputation credit to your websites, you have to leave it on dofollow blog, thus your task become more harder, besides making high quality comment to be approved by the blog owner, you have to search the real dofollow blog with the same topic with yours.
::. Some suggestions
1.Be smart on placing nofollow attributes to particular links/area
Don't activate nofollow attributes to the whole area of your websites. Try to focus on comment section or particular links which pointing to the website you don't want to give any reputation credits. Also, you can activate dofollow attribute once the comment section of you blog get more crowded or begin to make some discussion between you and the commenter.
2.When leave comment don't bother about nofollow or dofollow attributes
Yea, why i suggest you to not bother about nofollow or dofollow attributes when we leave comment on other blog? Because our backlinks will looked more natural, contains dofollow links and nofollow links as well.
Why Working From Home is Nothing New | Work From Home
Working From Home is Nothing New
Working from home is a whole new way of working — a revolution in industry, in society, in the way we live. Or is it? While making a living by sitting in a café with a frappucino and a two-way link to the cloud might be something your parents never dreamed of doing, the idea that you can ignore the corporate world and earn from home is actually about as modern as iron horseshoes and knitting needles. In fact, not only are today’s home-based tech workers more traditional than the average cubicle drone, they actually have a long way to go before their numbers come close to those of the good old days despite recent trends.
According to the US Census Office, the number of people who work at home more than two days a week increased between 1980 and 1990 by 56 percent from 2.2 million to 3.4 million.That’s a remarkable rise and one made all the more impressive by happening before the expansion of the Internet. In the decade following 1990, as communications improved and email replaced memos, the figures increased by a further 22.8 percent to reach 4.2 million people. By 2000, the Census Office reports, 3.3 percent of the working population was able to skip the commute for most of their workweek.
When One in Fourteen Worked from Home
But those are still significantly lower than the numbers in 1960 when almost 4.7 million people were earning their keep from home – a full 7.2 percent of the population. That number halved over the following twenty years, a decline which the Census Office puts down primarily to the closure of family farms and the movement of doctors and other professionals away from home offices and towards large shared practices.
But it wasn’t just the last of the small farmers and home-visiting doctors who were able to call their homes their workspaces in the 1960s. Some of the most important contributions to American culture were being produced in home offices even before the era of free love and one-way commutes to Southeast Asia.
Pay a visit to Frank Lloyd Wright’s home in Oak Park, Illinois, for example, and you’ll be able to see not just the house in which the creator of the Prairie style lived from 1889-1909 but also the office in which he designed 125 of the country’s most important structures. Nor was his own home just a workplace. It was also an architectural laboratory on which he tested his design concepts and theories. Most home workers work in their house. Frank Lloyd Wright’s house was also his work.
That a creative professional like an architect should be able to avoid an office building is perhaps not surprising. Designers, painters, sculptors and other arty types tend to work alone, relying on their own inspiration to deliver their ideas. They rarely need the kinds of equipment that’s best supplied by large office buildings and having secretaries, assistants, sales staff and watercoolers around might even be distracting. Around 40 percent of artists are believed to work from home studios – or at least they do until children come along and claim the studio as their bedroom.
The Web’s Work from Home Industrial Revolution
According to the 1990 census though, almost half of all home workers were in the service industries, which included business and repair work, entertainment and recreation, and “other professional and related services.” By 2000, 1.9 million people were providing “professional services” from home – by far the most popular category – but there were also more than 42,000 people preparing food professionally in their own kitchens and over half a million cutting hair, giving massages and delivering other kinds of personal care. Interestingly, almost 5,000 people in the fishing, hunting and forestry professions worked from home at the start of the millennium too. You have to wonder about the size of their yards.
Even this variety might not be anything new. Perhaps the most important characteristic of the Industrial Revolution was the movement to cities as factories became the shared workspaces of a new urban working class. But what were those new proletarians doing before the opening of the mills and the invention of automated looms that could fill factory floors and lop off children’s fingers? Some, as in early twentieth century America, would have been driving horses on farms but others would have been crafting from home. For women in particular, the loss of hand looms to the spinning jenny meant a shift away from home and family to cotton mills and hard-nosed bosses. For men too, the rise of the assembly line marked the end of the kind of sweating, hammering and hand-crafting of unreliable quality that could be done in a home workshop.
Interestingly, Peter Sweeney, Founder & CTO of semantic technology firm Primal Fusion, has described Web 3.0 as the Internet’s own industrial revolution, a time when the social connections of Web 2.0 gives way to the automated production of content. Wolfram Alpha, he says, is one example of the way in which information can be produced automatically and without the kind of work-at-home handicraft that predated Dickens and which now characterizes the Web’s co-working content producers.
That sounds unlikely. Easy communication is only going to increase the return to home-working and recession hit tech-types who have spent the last few months consulting from home will take some persuading to get back to the traffic jams when the economy does pick up. But today’s home-workers are now primarily tapping keyboards rather than driving tractors. They’re in the cities rather than in the dust fields of Oklahoma (although many of them, like those former agriculturalists, are also now in California). And unlike independent spinners and weavers, they find that they can compete easily with the productivity levels of factory and office-based employees.
Working from home then isn’t a new way of working. It’s a return to an old, traditional – and more enjoyable — way of working, and don’t let the Luddites tell you otherwise.
Working from home is a whole new way of working — a revolution in industry, in society, in the way we live. Or is it? While making a living by sitting in a café with a frappucino and a two-way link to the cloud might be something your parents never dreamed of doing, the idea that you can ignore the corporate world and earn from home is actually about as modern as iron horseshoes and knitting needles. In fact, not only are today’s home-based tech workers more traditional than the average cubicle drone, they actually have a long way to go before their numbers come close to those of the good old days despite recent trends.
According to the US Census Office, the number of people who work at home more than two days a week increased between 1980 and 1990 by 56 percent from 2.2 million to 3.4 million.That’s a remarkable rise and one made all the more impressive by happening before the expansion of the Internet. In the decade following 1990, as communications improved and email replaced memos, the figures increased by a further 22.8 percent to reach 4.2 million people. By 2000, the Census Office reports, 3.3 percent of the working population was able to skip the commute for most of their workweek.
When One in Fourteen Worked from Home
But those are still significantly lower than the numbers in 1960 when almost 4.7 million people were earning their keep from home – a full 7.2 percent of the population. That number halved over the following twenty years, a decline which the Census Office puts down primarily to the closure of family farms and the movement of doctors and other professionals away from home offices and towards large shared practices.
But it wasn’t just the last of the small farmers and home-visiting doctors who were able to call their homes their workspaces in the 1960s. Some of the most important contributions to American culture were being produced in home offices even before the era of free love and one-way commutes to Southeast Asia.
Pay a visit to Frank Lloyd Wright’s home in Oak Park, Illinois, for example, and you’ll be able to see not just the house in which the creator of the Prairie style lived from 1889-1909 but also the office in which he designed 125 of the country’s most important structures. Nor was his own home just a workplace. It was also an architectural laboratory on which he tested his design concepts and theories. Most home workers work in their house. Frank Lloyd Wright’s house was also his work.
That a creative professional like an architect should be able to avoid an office building is perhaps not surprising. Designers, painters, sculptors and other arty types tend to work alone, relying on their own inspiration to deliver their ideas. They rarely need the kinds of equipment that’s best supplied by large office buildings and having secretaries, assistants, sales staff and watercoolers around might even be distracting. Around 40 percent of artists are believed to work from home studios – or at least they do until children come along and claim the studio as their bedroom.
The Web’s Work from Home Industrial Revolution
According to the 1990 census though, almost half of all home workers were in the service industries, which included business and repair work, entertainment and recreation, and “other professional and related services.” By 2000, 1.9 million people were providing “professional services” from home – by far the most popular category – but there were also more than 42,000 people preparing food professionally in their own kitchens and over half a million cutting hair, giving massages and delivering other kinds of personal care. Interestingly, almost 5,000 people in the fishing, hunting and forestry professions worked from home at the start of the millennium too. You have to wonder about the size of their yards.
Even this variety might not be anything new. Perhaps the most important characteristic of the Industrial Revolution was the movement to cities as factories became the shared workspaces of a new urban working class. But what were those new proletarians doing before the opening of the mills and the invention of automated looms that could fill factory floors and lop off children’s fingers? Some, as in early twentieth century America, would have been driving horses on farms but others would have been crafting from home. For women in particular, the loss of hand looms to the spinning jenny meant a shift away from home and family to cotton mills and hard-nosed bosses. For men too, the rise of the assembly line marked the end of the kind of sweating, hammering and hand-crafting of unreliable quality that could be done in a home workshop.
Interestingly, Peter Sweeney, Founder & CTO of semantic technology firm Primal Fusion, has described Web 3.0 as the Internet’s own industrial revolution, a time when the social connections of Web 2.0 gives way to the automated production of content. Wolfram Alpha, he says, is one example of the way in which information can be produced automatically and without the kind of work-at-home handicraft that predated Dickens and which now characterizes the Web’s co-working content producers.
That sounds unlikely. Easy communication is only going to increase the return to home-working and recession hit tech-types who have spent the last few months consulting from home will take some persuading to get back to the traffic jams when the economy does pick up. But today’s home-workers are now primarily tapping keyboards rather than driving tractors. They’re in the cities rather than in the dust fields of Oklahoma (although many of them, like those former agriculturalists, are also now in California). And unlike independent spinners and weavers, they find that they can compete easily with the productivity levels of factory and office-based employees.
Working from home then isn’t a new way of working. It’s a return to an old, traditional – and more enjoyable — way of working, and don’t let the Luddites tell you otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Rankings of Best SEO Companies in Mumbai (Exclusive List) - 2019
List of Top 10 Best SEO Companies in Mumbai (Bombay) Maharashtra. Want to know which SEO companies in Mumbai are giving their clients th...
