Blogging

Yesterday, Google officially launched Knol, its Wikipedia-like tool for crafting encyclopedic expert articles. As with Wikipedia, subject matter experts can write or contribute edits to a Knol page on a specific topic. Unlike the case with Wikipedia, however, the author(s) is identified, so readers know who contributed to the article and understand any biases the author(s) may bring to the topic. For example, a technology vendor may write a very different page on a specific topic than what a user would write. Politically, a Libertarian is likely to define a term such as “healthcare reform” very differently from a Green.

This makes Knol at least potentially much more democratic than Wikipedia, a significant problem with which has been the ability of a small cabal of self-appointed high priests to unilaterally delete content for any reason (or apply their “rules” differently for different contributors). Also unlike Wikipedia, Knol will permit multiple Knol pages on the same topic; that’s going to be interesting. No word on how Google will choose to rank competing Knols for search engine placement, but presumably quality will matter in some way.

So, why is this exciting for B2B marketers? Think of how many subject matter experts hold valuable knowledge in their heads, but don’t have the time to commit to a blog. Until now, the only alternative was to either write an article for publication (beneficial but challenging) or to write a guest post for an existing blog (often even more challenging). Now, the SME can write a Knol page—with full authorship credit for the writer and company—and publish it for the world, with no pressure to write on a regular basis. Like a blog post, the content is interactive, but the shelf life of the Knol is potentially much longer. There is also potential SEO value, though details remain to be determined.

Among the better posts written about Knol thus far are Web development on Google Knol from Bluemilkshake, Google Introduces Knol as Wikipedia Alternative from Clint Boulton’s Google Watch, Google’s Knol product is now open from David Crotty at Bench Marks, and Google Knol Released. It’s Not Wikipedia. from The Radioactive Yak.

*****

Contact Tom Pick: tomATwebmarketcentralDOTcom

See the rest here:
Using Google Knol as a B2B Marketing Tool

Updated at 11 a.m. PT with more detail and background, plus a screenshot.

Think you are an expert on a subject? Well, Google’s got a proposition for you.

Google’s Wikipedia competitor, Knol, was opened to the public on Wednesday morning, according to the Official Google Blog.

So-called knols are articles about specific topics written by experts on that subject. What makes Knol different from Wikipedia is that every knol will have an author, or group of authors, whose name is prominent.

People can submit comments, rate, and review knols. Knol authors can run ads with them, as well, and receive a cut of the revenue from Google.

Google is partnering with The New Yorker magazine to allow any author to add a cartoon from the magazine to their knol.

“With Knol, we are introducing a new method for authors to work together that we call ‘moderated collaboration,’” the blog posting says. “With this feature, any reader can make suggested edits to a knol, which the author may then choose to accept, reject, or modify before these contributions become visible to the public. This allows authors to accept suggestions from everyone in the world while remaining in control of their content. After all, their name is associated with it!”

Knol was announced late last year.

Google's Knol site is open to anyone who wants to write an article on a topic about which they’re knowledgeable.

(Credit: Google)

Read more from the original source:
Google’s Wikipedia rival, Knol, goes public

Within an astonishingly short time, Wikipedia has become one of the most-visited sites on the Internet. Consequently, Wikipedians—the self-appointed guardians of what is and isn’t permissible for inclusion on the site—have become very powerful in determining what you are permitted to know about any topic, and even which topics are worthy of inclusion. It’s been said that with great power comes great responsibility. That responsibility isn’t always handled properly.

For example, Wikipedia’s list of social networking websites now contains 111 entries; an impressive list, but certainly not all-inclusive. To the credit of Wikipedians, the list is now much better than it was just a few months ago, when it contained only 43 entries, but it is still behind the curve.

Then there is the matter of commercial content. While no one wants to see Wikipedia degenerate into a collection of marketing brochures, the site’s prohibition on commercial speech seems to be unclear and unevenly enforced. There are tens of thousands of small businesses with no presence on Wikipedia, yet Oracle (the database company) is listed, as are The Oracle (the shopping mall near London), as well as PeopleSoft, SAP, IBM, and many other corporate giants.

Finally, there is the accuracy of the content itself. To cite just one recent example, Debra Mastaler points out in her post Do You Link Dope or Incestuously Link? on The Link Spiel that Wikipedia’s page on link-building methods contains “terminology used to describe outdated , incomplete and irrelevant link methods.” She goes on to write that “And yet, when I publicly suggest knowledgeable people with good content should contribute to the Wikipedia, I’m spoken down to, told to read the conflict of interest guidelines and criticized.” Ouch. And Debra is by no means alone on this.

When frustration in the user community is combined with the opportunity for astronomical site traffic, competitors are bound to emerge. One such alternative is Freebase, which is still very immature (but does have its own Wikipedia page). Of no doubt more concern to the Wikipedians is Knol, Google’s still-in-beta entry into online reference. As Michael Estrin points out, “According to Hitwise, more than half of Wikipedia’s traffic comes from Google. While Knol and Wikipedia may not be direct competitors in terms of style, the two do appear to be on a collision course for top billing when it comes to web queries.” To put it more bluntly, Wikipedia gets high traffic because it gets great placement on Google searches; what do you suppose is going to happen to the site’s search engine position once Google has a competitive offering?

Despite its flaws, Wikipedia isn’t going to disappear. But the shine is off, and serious competitors are emerging. Through a combination of success and arrogance (over-zealous article rejection, the use of insidious “no follow” tags, condescension to contributors), the Wikipedians have brought this upon themselves.

*****

Read the original:
Social Networking Sites and SEO: What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You