TECH POP-UPS

Yesterday, Google expanded a controversial feature which allows Google+ users to send emails directly to someone else's Gmail. This isn't exactly a new feature, as there has been the option to allow Google+ users to email you via your G+ profile, but the new addition is that you can find people you follow on G+ directly in Gmail, and the most controversial part of it all: it was turned on by default.

Earlier today, we described why you might be interested in disabling this feature. The main reason for disabling the feature would probably be that you don't use Google+, and if you're not a plusser, then by all means you should disable the feature. And, I would certainly understand if you want to dial it back, because we do feel that Google overstepped in setting the default to allow "Anyone on Google+" to contact you; it should have been limited to just your circles, or extended circles at most. However, it is easy enough to change that setting; and, I would like to point out a couple things about the new feature, just in case you're on the fence about it, because there is value to be had in it. 

First of all, the feature isn't as worrisome as you may think. Users may be able to email you, but they don't ever get to see your email address, and you are in control of what happens after that first message. If someone emails you once, and you don't respond or add that person to your G+ circles, they will not be allowed to message you again. This has been done to limit the amount of spam and trolling that can be perpetrated through the system. And, if you have Gmail's auto-tags enabled, messages from someone not in your circles will be bumped out of your Primary inbox and into your Social inbox, giving you an extra opportunity to ignore it if you want. 

Second, there is real value in this feature, if you fit the use-case. These controls make this a very interesting feature which feels more like Google is making a move against LinkedIn rather than any other social service. Think of it this way: if you are searching for a new job, or trying to build up your brand, you may turn to LinkedIn to push out some unsolicited networking emails. However, with LinkedIn there are two downsides: first, anyone can send you a message as long as they pay for the privilege; and second, you are less likely to get a response through LinkedIn than if you were to track down that person's actual email address, meaning you could end up wasting your money. 

On the other side, if you want to use Google+, your message will go directly into the recipient's Gmail, which gives it a higher likelihood of being seen. It won't cost you anything either. So, if you are attempting to build a public profile on the web, or if you are interested in helping others do so, or if you are just interested in helping out in your area of expertise, there is a lot of value in Google's new feature. For example, I have had the feature turned on with my Google+ profile since it was first made available, and the only emails I have received from it have been from readers who either want to comment directly on a story, want to send a tip about a potential story, or ask me a question because they trust my opinion. 

Sure, there will be some trolls and spam (and frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see some after I post this), but the system is designed to mitigate those issues right from the start, and Google will undoubtedly add more anti-spam features as time goes by. But, spam comes with being more open; it's an unfortunate side-effect of something that does have value for some people. 

I certainly can't and won't argue that it is valuable for everyone. If you want to protect your privacy, that is your right and your choice. However, for some people, there is great value in living in public. In my experience, the more open I am, the less I worry about protecting my privacy, because at some point I began equating the "need" for privacy with a fear of being rejected by society. I eventually decided that in the majority of cases, privacy was really the mistaken belief that what you do and who you are is somehow different and wrong compared to others. It is the insecurity that comes from comparing your "behind-the-scenes with everyone else's highlight reel." (-Steve Furtick)

The more open you become, the more you realize that we are all human, and we share a lot more in common than what can be seen as differences. For example, I don't feel the need to be private about any health issues, because I don't hold exclusive rights to eczema, nor am I the only one to have a family history of skin cancer. I am not the only person to have been a shy kid or a fat kid, nor am I the only one to have overcome those issues to find great relationships and better health. From my choice of profession, I clearly don't feel ashamed to be passionate and excited by technology, because I am obviously not the only one to have that viewpoint. 

Of course, as with all beliefs, the key is to not force your views on others. I realize that my views on privacy are not universal. I have kept certain pictures and social posts more private, because my wife doesn't hold my same views on being public. And, there are obviously more extreme cases where anonymity and privacy equate directly to safety for some; and, I could never suggest that those people would be better off leading public lives. But, I have also lived a long time on the Internet, and dealt with countless people who hold the view that the only way to get noticed is through negative attention (aka trolls). 

At the end of the day, it is a choice. I have chosen to be more open, and I have found value in that (and have written about that in the past), just as I have found value in Google+. If you don't see the value in openness, or the value in Google+, then obviously you should just follow the easy steps we laid out earlier to turn off the new Gmail feature. All I would say is: don't let your knee-jerk reaction dictate what you do. The initial reaction by most these days is to want to protect one's privacy. Given all of the trouble with the NSA, various leaks, and stolen data, there are good reasons why you might feel that way. However, as the incomparable Frank Sinatra once said, "Fear is the enemy of logic." So, it can't hurt to take a few moments and reflect on why you feel the way you do, question what is driving your decisions. Those few moments of introspection can help make better decisions, and help to avoid any potential "troll moments" that we all have when we get stuck in auto-pilot. 

It was a rather productive (and busy) year for Twitter's engineers. With the site now fielding 500 million daily tweets, a number of product updates were introduced throughout the year in order to enhance the experience for everyone involved. The most important Twitter updates of 2013 were:

In January, Twitter introduced the app that's provided the portal for some of 2013's funniest video moments; Vine. Essentially, Vine allowed users to post visual tweets in the form of 6 second looping videos. At the time many people wondered just how much you could really say or do with 6 seconds or less but the true potential of Vine as a medium for entertainment and for business has really been proven in the last 11 months and it's popularity continues to grow. Clever recruiters have used the medium to tweet creative and visually pleasing job offers and employer branding efforts.

In August, Twitter added blue and grey lines to our screens in an attempt to organise conversations between users in chronological order. Now, even if a user responds to a tweet hours after it was posted, both the original and the response are grouped together and linked by a conversation line. The update wasn't popular with everyone but certainly for recruiters, being able to see when and how a candidate responded to Twitter engagement is extremely useful.

One of the most obvious and certainly most lucrative of Twitter's updates was the introduction of preview images for images attached to tweets. For the first time, users didn't have to click into a tweet to view an image, now a mini preview version brightened up our streams and the need to waste time clicking into individual images was done away with. The update not only made or streams a happier, more colorful place to be, but preview images also meant big business for corporate brands desperate to get their images and ads out there in front of users' beady eyes. The same could be said for recruiters wanting to catch the eye of potential candidates with relevant images that would lead them to click and discover the perfect job for them.

In September, Twitter started pushing out recommendation notifications to users, providing them with information regarding the activity of their followers e.g. if numerous followers were retweeting the same tweet. Perfect for recruiters looking to see what members of their hiring industry are talking about and excited about.

In the past, you were only allowed to direct message another Twitter user if they were following you but in November the feature was opened up to everyone on LinkedIn regardless of their follow status. This one teeny update made a huge difference to how recruiters could connect with potential candidates on Twitter. Twitter was now letting recruiters contact potential candidates for free in a casual environment and in one that is actually opened and read by candidates unlike many email efforts.

The ability to  filter search results using a variety of media types including photos, video, news and people was launched in mid-November. Not only were users now able to pinpoint their searches by certain topics, they were also able to elect when their search results should be from. Users began to have a choice between results from a selection of 'top' tweets (which are often older), and ‘all’ tweets (which gives you a much more current set of results). The new update also meant that users' search could be broken down even further to reveal local content, rather than just stuff from ‘everywhere’ as it had been since the function began. For recruiters looking to find and hire people in a particular area, having the ability to search local content, in real time is priceless. By filtering tweets and content by topics related to the skills you seek in a candidate, recruiters are able to see influential tweeters in action and approach them on Twitter by making reference to the candidate's latest tweets.

source: New York Times

Facebook is going to examine the patience of its some users in against of hundreds of million of dollars it could make on video advertisement. Ads will be placed into some news feeds -  Facebook page will display the stream of items. Now starting from this week some of Facebook users will see video ads in their news feeds. In the beginning Facebook will only make visible video ads at a short span of people. 

Video ads will be nestled between photos of giggling babies, some personal items on the site, video will kick off by default in muted mode. Facebook users will have to pocket the new ads, particularly in their mobile Facebook. In the start of year, Facebook was criticized a lot due to its sluggish development in mobile devices. Now, half of the company’s advertising revenue is derived from its mobile audience, which helped push the company’s share price up 100 percent over the last year, to $54 a share.

The video ads, if poorly received, could risk that growth, but they also present a tremendous opportunity. Digital video advertising spending is expected to hit $4.15 billion by the end of this year, a 23 percent increase over last year, according to the market research company eMarketer. YouTube has the biggest slice of that spending, at about 20 percent.

Sterne Agee, a research firm, projects Facebook could command as much as $3 million a day in video ads, which could represent as much as 10 percent of the company’s advertising dollars in 2014. Facebook had $1.8 billion in advertising revenue in its most recent quarter.

Facebook has taken steps to assure people its video ads won’t be too annoying. The videos are silent unless a user taps, clicks on the ad or enlarges it to a full screen.

For data-guzzling mobile devices, the company said that videos would be downloaded in advance when the device was connected to Wi-Fi. So if someone checks Facebook when a device is connected through a cellular network, it will rely on predownloaded versions of the video ads, keeping it from consuming too much data, a concern for people whose phone contracts have a monthly limit on the amount of data they can use.

At the end of each video ad, Facebook will show two other video advertisements that users can click or tap to view, if they choose.

To start, Facebook is working with Summit Entertainment to show video previews promoting a coming movie called “Divergent,” a science-fiction thriller starring Shailene Woodley and Kate Winslet.

Facebook plans to eventually introduce the video ads to a broader audience, though it did not indicate when that would happen. But if early reactions on social media are any indication, Facebook has work ahead convincing users that its ads won’t be a problem.

“Thanks for implementing a feature that will slow my browsing down considerably, and eat into my monthly data allowance,” a user by the name of English Davis wrote on Facebook. “Really appreciate how much you care about your actual users! All this ad revenue won’t mean anything when you’ve driven everyone away.” Another user, named Brigette Meskey, wrote, “If it irritates me as much as I expect it will, I will be using FB a lot less.”

Facebook said that it had been testing video content on its site since September, and that the early response led it to continue with the introduction.

“As a result, we’ve seen views, likes, shares and comments increase more than 10 percent,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Reaction on Wall Street was muted, with Facebook’s share price up 1.95 percent Tuesday.

This is not the first time that Facebook has had to balance its desire to increase ad sales with the demands of customers. The company has long tinkered with its site design and has frequently introduced changes to its privacy settings.

Andrew Frank, an analyst at the research company Gartner, said that Facebook would tread lightly with the mobile ads and would use the limited test as a trial balloon, but he added that he doubted users would mind very much.

“I find it hard to believe it’s going to move the needle very much or have an outcome that will contribute to a mass exodus from Facebook or anything,” Mr. Frank said.

The bigger goal, he said, is probably grabbing even a tiny slice of television advertising, which is worth $66 billion annually, according to eMarketer.

“Clearly, there are a lot of ifs in that question,” Mr. Frank said. “What’s at stake is whether or not Facebook is an attractive vehicle” for the kinds of branding ad campaigns so often seen on television.

Friends a good news from Twitter that Twitter announced to launch its new feature. This feature will let you send direct message to everyone. This amenity wasn't for all users before, only you could send direct message to those who were your followers. At this moment this feature will not be available for all Twitter's 20 Million users. Twitter will embark this amenity by the passage of time in different countries. I heard from some Twitter users that they got this feature straight away on 17 Oct, 2013, but some were remain deprived even on 19 Oct. 

Twitter will provide its users a check box where users will be given option either to choose this facility or not. Friends what do you think about this feature? I think this feature will be a easier  to interact with each other more closely, but spammers can break the ice of Twitter's peaceful environment. What are your comment about it, do share with me.

Thank your very much friends.