I’m using woopra to track live visitors and I’m not sure, but it seems that it’s missing a bunch of visitors! I know this because I’m also running a plugin on my site that shows me the Users that are at the site and there are many more visitors that aren’t shown on Woopra. Now, some of these visitors may be bots, but I’d sure like to know with more certainty when a person is on the site.

Does anyone have any ideas how I can be more sure about how well Woopra is working for me? I’ve looked at the Woopra forums and have seen comparisons between Woopra and Google Analytics, but Google isn’t meant to track in real time which is what I need.

Why do I need it? Because Plexav.com enables people to be on the air LIVE! Pick up your cell phone and dial “Wizard Bing” and if the line isn’t busy, you’ll hear the phone ring (once or twice) and then you’re on the air!

And, if you register to be a correspondant, you can post images, text, links and videos which will all appear on the site. Visitors won’t have to refresh the page, they’ll just appear! Witnessing a newsworthy story?? Call “Wizard Bing” and with your web enabled phone you can post images, video, and you can describe the goings on at the same time!

This is the new dynamic web and you can be there!

In their August 14th story entitled Online Video Ad Spending Growth: Get Ready for a Stream of Dollars,Emarketer.com reports their 2008 web based video ad revenue estimates have been more than halved. One is left to wonder if Emarketer’s present estimates are overly optimistic.

The Difference Between Click-Throughs (CPC) and Impressions (CPM)

One reason that revenues are falling short of estimates may have to do with how ad revenues are determined. Online video advertising generally includes in-stream (pre-roll and overlays), in-banner, and in-text ads (delivered when users mouse-over relevant words). If, due to a lack of data, analysts failed to accurately distinguish video content from other forms of content such as text, images, or audio, then ad click-through estimates were likely inflated.

Click-through rates associated with text, image, an audio content exceed click-through rates associated with video content. The visually dynamic nature of video more fully and more continuously attracts a viewer’s attention. When situated in a room with an operating television, regardless of the content, a person will continue to regularly look back top the screen.

Absent the introduction of a new advertising/presentation model, it’s likely that web video revenues will continue to primarily depend upon impressions rather than click-throughs. Given that impression based ad revenues are generally far lower than click-through ad revenues (assuming even small click-through rates). Additionally, it’s likely that impression based revenues will decline as advertisers realize that the value of advertising impressions is lower than originally thought as well.

If analysts continue to assume that people will click on ads in conjunction with video content, or that revenue/impressions will remain stable, then their estimates will continue to remain high. The euphoria surrounding web video could quickly sour, depressing investment until a more profitable advertising or presentation model is introduced. Given that I’m presently developing a new presentation/advertising model, I remain optimistic. Biased, and optimistic.

Summum Bonum

Easy Way to Improve Your Page Rank?

How does Google determine the page rank for newly and recently published posts and pages? How can you better your chances for high page ranks that last? Check out the link and let me know what you think by commenting below.

Most of the services we enjoy from Web2.0 companies are offered “FREE” of charge. Friendly reminder here….NOTHING’S FREE!! The cost for free services may be hidden, but ultimately each User pays for the services in some way.

Users have for the most part stopped reading the Terms and Conditions to which they agree when they register at free Web2.0 sites. Many Users have NEVER reviewed the Terms and Conditions, but in their defense, the deals early on were pretty fair. Google swore they’d do no evil and began rolling out service after service - for FREE!

I appreciate what Google’s founders were attempting to do when they pledged to do no evil. Ironically however, because ‘do no evil’ was characterized as a standard by which to act, and not as an ideal towards which to strive, people came to count on it. Users quickly viewed it as the norm for Google and other web companies.

Users were happy to let Google use their data to improve search results, to filter spam, and whatever else Google might do under the terms of the User Agreements. For a short while it even seemed that Google’s duty to investors was aligned with its sense of responsibility to its Users and its interest in doing no evil. Eventually however, Google was forced act in keeping with its duty to investors and short term profitability.