LinkedIn University Rankings – Based on career outcomes | LinkedIn.
I would argue that this is something else that the world doesn’t need. “Best Colleges” as ranked by numbers of people who are on LinkedIn. So, type of education doesn’t matter; depth of education doesn’t matter; deep thought doesn’t matter, only numbers matter.
Another set of bogus rankings? Really?
So, all of the large universities are the best, right? Because they have the largest numbers of graduates?
Those of you who are going to/have graduated from small privates, smaller public universities, Ivy League schools, polytechnics and the like, where do you fit in? Nowhere, I suppose.
A former boss told me — many, many times — that college rankings are “junk science.” He was right.
I don’t know that anyone is surprised by this. I was a little surprised by #2, but, after some thought, I can see why.
via Facebook Drives the Most Traffic to Publishers [CHART].
Online retailers spend nearly 80% of their digital marketing budgets acquiring shoppers (new visitors), but does this focus make sense? To find out, Adobe Digital Index analyzed 33 billion visits to 180 online retail website in Europe and the United States from April 2011 to June 2012. Our data indicates retailers should shift spend to returning and repeat purchasers, two existing customer segments that drive a disproportionately high share of revenue, exhibit higher conversion rates, and really step up in the Christmas holiday season and tough economic times. Migrating just 1% of shoppers to returning purchasers could generate as much as $39 million in additional revenue per retailer.
Terrific, sensible stuff. Also, there’s a great infographic to accompany.
H/T Gerry McGovern
Here’s what you miss by only talking to white men about the digital revolution and journalism.| The Washington Post – The Switch blog
On Monday, Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on The Press, Politics and Public Policy and the Nieman Journalism Lab launched Riptide, a new project about the disruption of journalism by technology. The project bills itself as an “oral history of the epic collision between journalism and digital technology, from 1980 to the present.”
But looking at the final product and their list of sources, it appears that the project misses a key aspect of how the digital age disrupted traditional journalism: Digital advances, particularly the spread of the Internet and the rise of blogging, gave a powerful new way for voices marginalized in the elite journalism sphere to spread their stories.
I love this. And it’s so true. In journalism, certainly, but across the Western World in its entirety. Whenever you see a “captain of industry” that is anything other than a white man — more specifically, a white man 55+ — it’s a novelty. It’s true. It’s sad; but it’s true.
The project would have been stronger if it had done a better job of incorporating the perspective of female and minority voices. For example, one of the ways the digital age disrupted the journalism field was making it easier for marginalized voices to find audiences.
Indeed. African-Americans, women, the LGBT community, Latinos — all groups that have been marginalized by the mainstream and all groups which have embraced the Internet with vigor. Who needs a white male out-of-step gatekeeper when you can produce your own content and get it to your constituents??
Marissa Mayer’s winning streak at Yahoo continued this week as comScore released figures showing Yahoo sites got more visitors than Google’s in July.
Yahoo Gets More U.S. Visitors Than Google for First Time Since 2011.
There’s more to this than meets the eye. If you read the headline or this cut, it looks as though more people are using Yahoo than Google. For what, though? For search?
Are YOU using Yahoo for search more than you are Google? You may be going to more Yahoo-controlled sites than you are Google-controlled sites, but you are not using search sites more than Google. Know how I know this?
I know this because comScore, the same people that released the info above say so. Google controls 67% of the Internet search market.
Dig a bit deeper if you see stats that make you scratch your head a bit.
In today’s episode, we talk about a new study by eBay about the efficacy of purchasing search terms related to your business name. Do Walgreens, Amazon, Chevy or Ford need to purchase those terms? We examine this and give you a few ideas about thinking twice about conventional wisdom when it comes to marketing on the Web.
Read the article in the Harvard Business Review blog about the eBay study.
More videos in this series.
If your project or organization depends on knowing things that other people dont know but could find out if they wanted to, your days are probably numbered. Ask a travel agent.Agents and brokers of any kind, in fact. Anyone who thrives when people are in the dark is in ever more danger of working in the bright light of transparent information.
via Seths Blog: Hoarding information.
As ever. Mr. Godin serves up the truth cleanly and eloquently.
Some interesting stats from Pew, via Mashable. Make sure to read the article in the link above, but also study this chart from Docstoc. I’m intrigued by the “some college” education level as the heaviest users. And about the level of use of LinkedIn. I believe there is more to be mined here than what you see below in the aggregate.
One-Liner Pitch: Loveflutter is a new dating site that helps you find people who share the same interests.
Why Its Taking Off: Powered by Google’s Knowledge Graph, Loveflutter matches people based on their interests, and uses Foursquare to suggest ideas for your first date.
via Loveflutter Finds Your Match Using Googles Knowledge Graph.|Mashable
This is rather interesting. I’m not sure I truly believe it, but stranger things have happened. The ultimate question is, “can data dictate results in matters of the heart?”
I would be more dubious about finding soul mates online if I hadn’t met my own partner on an online dating site 10 years ago when it wasn’t yet considered mainstream. I proudly scandalized all of my friends!
Here’s an image of the Loveflutter profile, courtesy of Mashable:
Summary: Most users are unable to solve even halfway complicated problems with search. Better to redirect their efforts into more supportive user interfaces when possible.
Users are incredibly bad at finding and researching things on the web. A few years ago, I characterized users’ research skills as “incompetent,” and they’ve only gotten worse over time. “Pathetic” and “useless” are words that come to mind after this year’s user testing.
via Converting Search into Navigation.
Great piece from Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. I find it so interesting that so many people search so poorly. I’m not sure why. Background? Training? How we’re wired? I wonder if those of us old cranks who learned to search using the card catalogue aren’t better off.
Anyhow, read this.
H/T Gerry McGovern (@gerrymcgovern)