Over the holiday weekend, one of my favorite topics was highlighted on TechCrunch's email of the week article relating to the "proper" written form of what I, like TechCrunch, like to call a "website". This was approprately responded to by Michael Arrington and I want to give a big kudos to his response.

There has always been a great debate over the "correct" way technology items should be written and in this case, the use of "website" by TechCrunch in a recent article. Having been brought up as an advertising student in a Journalism program, my first hand experience mirrors what Arrington highlights in his article, specifically his position that the AP is "woefully behind the times." This was the case when I was in school in the early 90s, and it looks like nothing has changed. Arrington hits the nail on the head related to the "self importance" that the AP styleguide has put on itself. The fact is, AP loved the influence it "had" on the written form. Emphasis on the word: had.

As added commentary, the use of "Web" does not always relate to the proper noun of the "Internet" (which should always be capitalized, and is often not capitalized). AP is making an assumption that any "site" is physically attached to the Internet, or Web and therefore must carry a proper designation. This is simply not the case. Many "sites", which may use HTTP protocols, are not physically attached to the Internet, and are often detatched destinations on private networks, or subsytems (e.g., intranet site, etc.). Therefore, website refers to a generic, rather than a proper noun.

For more reading, see Wikipedia's listing, which tends to agree with TechCrunch. Though, if pressed, I don't really mind if it is website, web site, or Web site. It's your web, not mine.

AP, please feel free to comment on any other style issues you find in this posting. I am sure there are many. :>)

No matter what you do, social always gets the best of you in the end.

I heard about Skittles integrating with Facebook and Flickr, which on its own, is an innovative way to differentate it's web presence from other candy manufacturers. And can we all be honest here? Consumer packaged goods web sites are generally pretty boring on their own. How much can you really say about a fruit flavored candy wrapped in a rainbow colored shell? And we all know that these websites were really never intended as part of the purchase decision?

Stepping away from the endless number of sticky games, contests and promotions, this approach takes what consumers expect to see when visiting a candy website and turns the experience upside down. The issue – along with any social marketing execution – is the ability to give up control of content and how it is used. This is a risk that needs to be considered, especially when the visitors may be children.

So when I confirmed my age (by the way, I'm not sure who the legal loophole genius was who invented this concept and does nothing to really protect minors – that's for another posting) and allowed my Facebook to "connect" with the Skittles site, the above image is what I saw first, featuring a wonderful post by "Loui". I am sure that Skittles did not dream that their fans would provide such passionate wall postings.

So how does "MF" end up as Skittle's featured "adjective" on its "website"? It's human nature. When rolling out any social marketing implementation, marketers must always carefully think through how content may be inserted, modified and displayed by visitors. Any opening that provides a visitor to contribute content, also provides the same opportunity for negative, or at least, inappropriate content.

In this new age of giving up control of our content, we must all be prepared. Whatever that means.

I am currently on a flight from Las Vegas to ATL taking advantage of AirTran's Gogo WIFI partnership as a paying customer. It is my first mile high post, so bare with my as my bits make their way back to the hardwired Internet on the ground.

My initial flight out to Vegas a few days ago offered a free service trial for the flight, which I took advantage... since the flight offered no in-flight entertainment. Based upon my experience on that flight, I had no reservations ponying up the $9.95 to make my 3.5 hour flight back east a little more "entertainmenty".

For the most part I have been impressed with the service. Video sites such as Hulu and YouTube is a little spotty... as well, IM also lags a little, but was functional. I was able to write and send corporate and personal email, accessed a VPN, managed a hosting account at Godaddy, as well as keep up-to-date on blogs such as Lifehacker and iJustine. Overall the service offers relatively smooth connection with standard HTML content pages.

My real issue comes down to having enough battery life for a long flight. Airtran does not offer in-seat power (which is a contradiction to offering WIFI), so my use of the service is limited by my one battery... about 2.5 hours of the flight.

This leads me to one big question to consider... will the combination of business class drinking and WIFI serve as a gateway drug to unnecessary SkyMall purchases? I am guessing research will prove there is a direct correlation to post flight delivery of Harry Potter magic wand reproductions and Snuggies. Anyhow, 24 minutes of battery power remaining... better get back to Facebook.

Has Microsoft finally succeeded in search? With the roll out of Bing, previously know as Project Kumo, the company has generated a large amount of attention in a short amount of time within the blogosphere. The question is… Does the hype live up to what was delivered?

The company was obviously hurting with the failure of Microsoft Live search, a concept and approach that just did not connect with web users. Microsoft is repositioning Bing as a “decision engine,” with a goal “to provide customers with intelligent search tools to help them simplify tasks and make more informed decisions,” according to the company. A search for it in Google even returns a listing titled “Bing Decision Engine” in the paid search listings.

What’s different this go around? Is it just the marketing and packaging? That is a big part of it, but the introduction of Bing includes steps forward in the previous Live Search’s core search, such as entity extraction and expansion, query intent recognition and summarization of documents technologies. It also offers a new UX model, which changes based on the user’s query to offer more relevant decision-making tools along the way.

There as been a move by web applications to act as a “sherpa” along the way, helping users make the right choice about what their primary intent is. This approach has helped the e-commerce side, including Amazon. It will be interesting to see how this benefits the search providers as they adopt it as a standard.

Only time will tell how big Microsoft’s Bing will really impact search and how web users perceive it. Now it’s time to see what Google will do in response, specifically since Microsoft is riding such a large wave.

Does your MySpace page play the cha-cha? Does your Facebook account organize social schedules? Does your blog deliver financial information streaming at 20 minutes behind NASDAQ market activity?

If so, you are taking part in a big trend in web-based tools. In addition to providing additional stickiness and personal interaction with visitors, web widgets (also referred to as gadgets) solve functional needs of web users. And used in the right context, their value can help build a brand. Yes, I said “when used in the right context.”

The problem, as with many “free” web resources, many site administrators, bloggers, etc. can’t see the forest for the trees and most follow the “if 1 is cool, then 30 is even better” approach to “adding value” to their site.

It’s not just open-source geeks who are building widgets now. Marketers have seen the value of taking over “free” real estate on blogs and social networking sites. Success will come to marketers that can build functional and intuitive web gadgets, that can also fit within the context of an existing site’s functionality.

The downside is for every quality widget there is out there, there are 1,000 crap widgets. If you don’t believe me, peruse the following sites and comment on the ones you think are truly useful, and why.

Widgetbox

Vizu

Wigipedia

While you're pondering your next move on your Twitter account, take a moment to play a useless, but fun, web widget...

Can we all agree that the buzz around Web 2.0 has reached the heights that the term “Information Superhighway” did back in 1996? Virtually every marketing and technology blog known has written about it and have beaten it into the ground. So why am I writing about it now? Laziness? Apathy?

The truth is, Web 2.0 and the range of supportive technologies, coding standards and widgets have finally allowed community site administrators as well as ALL of their users to interact at a much deeper level than has ever been available before. Hence my attention.

Whether it was dial-up bulletin boards of the 1980s or Internet access providers like Prodigy and AOL in the 1990s, people with common interests have always found a way to get together online. Today, community development tools such as Ning have empowered site administrators to quickly and efficiently build and manage community sites. From the user’s perspective, members can now share their perspective just as easily using Web 2.0 enhancements. The increased user — and very friendly functionality — is quickly becoming the norm of community sites.

Interaction within community sites has also moved to a much deeper level as the diversity of use increases. Take for instance the rise of Health 2.0, the related term of health care community sites that utilize Web 2.0 attributes to build greater interactivity for members. Health 2.0 buzz sites include ICYou.com (a new video player aspiring to become the “YouTube of Healthcare.”), PeerClip (a “social bookmarking tool” for physicians) and Imedix (peer illness interaction), just to name a few. In addition, web widget resources relating to specific use cases are being used by community users to greater build their personality or link to like minded individuals (see WidgetBox.)

Keeping the health perspective in mind, the improvement for community members to interact has driven the creation of a new level of social networking, or micro-communities. Until relatively recently, patients didn’t network. The fact is that “Health 2.0″ technology is now now enabling people with like backgrounds, causes or interests — even if they are a very small percentage of a larger-smaller group — to truly interact in a good way.

And that’s what the Internet is all about, isn’t it?