Even the service’s biggest fans concede that looking for something on Twitter, which can only return results in chronological order, is frustrating at best.

Twitter knows it, too. COO Dick Costolo told me yesterday that his company has a dedicated team working to improve search and that we should expect to see improvements throughout the year.

Meanwhile, other people are taking a crack at it. TweetUp, for instance, intends to lure eyeballs to its ads by promising search results that favor particularly “great” tweets and tweeters.

And here’s a tweak today from Google: A feature that lets searchers comb through the Twitter archives and pull results from a particular time period.

Google (GOOG), which has a short-term contract to syndicate Twitter’s stream, is only offering the feature for tweets going back to February 11 this year, but the company says it will eventually offer the service for all the tweets generated in Twitter’s four-year history (see image below; click to enlarge).

That’s not nearly enough to fix Twitter search, but it is cool. And probably useful in some situations.

The feature is rolling out now, but it may take a while to show up on your laptop. To see if it’s available, go to “options” on your search results page and pick “updates.” If you still don’t see anything, you can see a sample version here, though I was only able to get it to work with the Safari browser, for some reason. Go figure.

So are they getting their money’s worth? Maybe–if they’re not spending much more than a double latte per fan.

Each fan is worth an average of $3.60 a year, based on the number of media impressions he or she generates via Facebook users’ “newsfeeds,” according to social media consultancy Vitrue.

AllFacebook explains the math:

If a brand posts to their Facebook Fan Page twice a day and have a million fans, that’s 60M impressions per month in the collective “news feed”. Vitrue used a figure of $5 CPM (Cost per thousand impressions), so 60M impressions would result in $300K/month of media value. I.e., what the brand might have to spend elsewhere to get the same eyeballs. That $300K /month is $3.6M/ year, meaning that with 1M fans, the average value is $3.6 per fan.

Interestingly, Vitrue’s numbers don’t try to account for the secondary impressions fan pages generate, when fans’ friends see their activity. But I’m sure that Facebook, and the vendors who help the social network promote its fan pages, will point that out.

That’s per Huffpo’s own numbers, served up by Google Analytics (GOOG). And as usual, outside auditors provide a different number. ComScore’s (SCOR) January numbers put the site at 26.4 million unique visitors (see breakdown at bottom of this post).

But no matter how you count it, there’s now a really, really big audience for a site the smart set derided as a vanity project for Arianna Huffington when it launched in 2005.

You may also recall predictions that Huffpo would wither after the 2008 elections, but that hasn’t happened either. So what’s driving the growth?

Verticals, says Huffington–the mini-Huffpos the site has been pumping out on a regular basis. The site’s technology and sports sections, for instance, didn’t exist six months ago. Now they account for 10 percent of Huffpo’s traffic, she says. (Did you know ultimate fighter Chuck Liddell has a nude workout tape?)

Other big hits: Comedy (up 58 percent in the last six months), style (37 percent), entertainment (25 percent).

Huffington was less boastful about the site’s attempts to roll out local sections. That started with Chicago in August 2008, and now includes Denver, Los Angeles and New York.

But she’s not sure where that will go next: “This year [we] have prioritized launching other sections, which has been a great decision,” she says. It’s possible that Huffpo will launch more local sites, or it may partner with other sites instead.

Huffington’s competitors and/or detractors would also want to point to the site’s team of technology wizards, which allow it to extract the maximum value out of a relatively small (100 full-time employees) staff. Huffpo has mastered the art of turning other people’s work into its own stories and eyeballs.

But eyeballs are eyeballs. Next up: Turning them  into dollars. That’s up to sales boss Greg Coleman and his brigade of Yahoo (YHOO) veterans.

It has fixed its tech problems and is doing just fine, thank you very much. Vevo says it is generating around 20 million video views a day, which puts it on track to generate some 600 million views a month.

Some context: ComScore (SCOR) says that Hulu itself generates some 900,000 video views in the U.S, making it the second biggest video site after YouTube. And Viacom (VIA), the current No. 3, generates 500,000 views.

If you want to compare apples to apples, though, you have to cut Vevo’s 600 million down to 300 million since about half its views come from outside the U.S. Still, that’s enough to qualify Vevo for eighth place in comScore’s rankings, placing it above AOL (AOL) and CBS (CBS).

And when comScore’s December video numbers are released at the end of this month, Vevo’s numbers will come in below 300 million since it didn’t launch until Dec. 9 and because comScore’s numbers are usually lower than any site’s internal numbers.

Still, that’s a lot of eyeballs, and it’s more than the joint venture between Sony (SNE), Vivendi’s Universal Music Group and Abu Dhabi Media Company expected. But the fact that Vevo began with a huge audience, rocky start and all, shouldn’t be a surprise.

In fact, I said so last month. No need to type it twice:

While everyone has rightly been flocking to Vevo.com itself for a look-see, it’s not the most important Web site for the joint venture. That would be YouTube, where most Vevo users are actually going to encounter–and watch–Vevo videos, without even knowing that they’re watching a Vevo video.

To be clear: When Google’s (GOOG) video site agreed to help Universal Music Group (and later Sony) launch a new hub for music videos, it didn’t mean it would be sending its users away from YouTube.

When you read about Vevo launching with 400 million video views in the first month, understand that the majority of those aren’t coming from the new site but from YouTubers who are watching music clips the same way they always do, on YouTube. But Vevo will get credit for those eyeballs and any ad dollars they generate.

That is: If you’re watching a Ke$ha video on YouTube, there’s a good chance you’re watching a Vevo video.

So. Next question. Can Vevo turn all those views into dollars?

We’ll see. CEO Rio Caraeff tells me his sales group continues to bring in high-profile advertisers–the latest, last week, was Procter & Gamble (PG)–and has been able to get between $25 and $30 for every 1,000 impressions. That’s a whole lot better than videos traditionally earned on YouTube, and as good as some TV shows.

But it’s relatively easy to announce that you’re selling your initial batch of inventory at a high rate. It’s much harder to sustain that over time. So it’s hard to read too much into those numbers just yet.

In the meantime, the site is going to get much bigger in the near future.

For one thing, it should start showing videos from EMI Music Group within a few weeks, which means that it will have clips from three of the four big music labels. Warner Music Group (WMG), the lone holdout, has its own deal with YouTube.

And in March, Vevo should start syndicating its clips to other big properties, starting with CBS and AOL, meaning it will have plenty more eyeballs to sell. The challenge will be proving that the JV’s thesis–music videos alone are attractive to advertisers–is worth the effort.

Meanwhile, here’s a primer on Ke$ha, whom I didn’t know about until the other day. She is apparently big with the kids these days.

Gawker’s Doree Shafrir explains this to the rest of us. And if you don’t like words, here’s the clip:

So says JP Morgan’s (JPM) Imran Khan. He predicts that Jeff Zucker’s screwup is good news for Jeff Bewkes since Time Warner makes a lot of “scripted programming,” and that’s what NBC will need to replace Leno at 10 pm.

The whole point of moving Leno to 10 pm, recall, was to save money on “scripted programming”–what you and I call “shows that aren’t reality shows.”

But it’s not as if NBC stopped running scripted shows altogether, and at max, the network is going to need an additional five hours a week. Khan says this will represent “incremental spending” for Time Warner (TWX), but it’s not as if NBC’s pressure to save on programming costs is going to go away. And even if the network buys all of five of those hours from Time Warner, it’s hard to see how that does much for a company that generated revenue of $6.3 billion last quarter (not counting AOL).

Khan also thinks the same logic means bad news for Disney (DIS) and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox because increased demand for nonreality shows “could result in higher talent and production costs.”

Again, this seems like a stretch: It seems like the lesson to draw from all this isn’t that expensive programming is good, but that bad programming is bad.

And as ad dollars inevitably leach out from TV to the Web, the pressure on all the networks will be to keep their viewers’ eyeballs while spending less on content. The real winners will be the ones who figure out how to make good stuff cheaply.

The Vevo team studiously took notes from Hulu leading up to the launch. That’s why, for instance, the company made the antitrust-appeasing move of bringing in a financial investor alongside content owners Universal Music and Sony (SNE).

But it got this part all wrong. Hulu had a (high-profile) alpha launch for months before it opened to the masses. Vevo opened for business on a single day, and promptly broke.

The relationship between Vevo and Schematic, the shop that built much of the site, wasn’t great to begin with–earlier this fall, there was some internal fingerpointing about cost overruns and/or delays–and I can’t imagine that this will make things any better.

But for the record, here’s Vevo’s “Hey! Chill out! We’re working on it!” message:

The traffic VEVO.com is experiencing right now has exceeded even our largest expectations and is multiple orders of magnitude above what any other online video service has generated at its launch. The VEVO team is working diligently to enhance the infrastructure required to more than meet the demands of the tens of millions of users who are trying to access the site on day one.

Still, this isn’t a total wipeout for Vevo. Because while everyone has rightly been flocking to Vevo.com itself for a look-see, it’s not the most important Web site for the joint venture. That would be YouTube, where most Vevo users are actually going to encounter–and watch–Vevo videos, without even knowing that they’re watching a Vevo video.

To be clear: When Google’s (GOOG) video site agreed to help Universal Music Group (and later Sony) launch a new hub for music videos, it didn’t mean it would be sending its users away from YouTube.

When you read about Vevo launching with 400 million video views in the first month, understand that the majority of those aren’t coming from the new site but from YouTubers who are watching music clips the same way they always do, on YouTube. But Vevo will get credit for those eyeballs and any ad dollars they generate.

So for now, the advice I offered would-be Vevo-watchers yesterday in advance of the launch remains useful today: If you want to watch a Vevo video, head to YouTube. Vevo won’t mind. Really.

Turns out Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt isn’t quite sure himself.

But posed with that question during a Boston news conference yesterday, Schmidt did use the opportunity to expound on the difference between pro bloggers and amateur ones. Or at least, his vision of the difference.

From Nieman Journalism Lab blogger Zachary Seward’s transcript of his exchange with Schmidt:

Me: A very small question. Google News very recently added a label for blogs, to differentiate from non-blogs. It seemed weird in 2009 to make that distinction. I wondered, did you have any input on that or –?

Eric Schmidt: I was not directly involved in that. There seems to be a difference between blogs and traditional news. It’s sometimes hard to distinguish because many people in the traditional news are also bloggers.

Me: Or they use a blog platform.

Schmidt: Or they use a blog platform. So we’re trying to find that line. And it’s hard to articulate what that difference is.

Me: How would describe that line if it’s not based on the tech behind the publishing platform?

Schmidt: No, it’s not the technology. My guess is–again, I’m speculating, which is always a mistake–it has a lot to do with the infrastructure around the writer. So a blog that’s associated with a major, legitimate organization–of which, I think, the majority, if not everyone, in the room is associated with–would be, I think, treated differently than an individual blogger who’s using his or her right of free expression to say whatever he thinks. So the presence of an editor, as an example. You know, an editor that’s not your mom.

As Seward points out, Schmidt is wrong about the way Google News categorizes. As best I can tell, Google basically lumps all blogs, including this one, which I like to think of as reasonably professional, in its “blog” category. And no, despite her occasional appearances on this site, Kara Swisher’s mother is not an editor here.

Anyway, the real question for me isn’t “how does Google refer to my work in its search results?” but “how does Google determine where to put my my work in its search results?” Schmidt and company can call it whatever they want–just send those eyeballs my way.

[image credit: kevindooley]

Now, three years after Google (GOOG) plunked down $1.6 billion for the video site, it seems to have figured out an approach that works for at least some big players: Hand over a chunk of the site to content creators, who get to control it, sell ads on it, program it with their stuff and share some of the ad dollars.

It’s a pretty straightforward compromise: YouTube gets some of the ad dollars that “premium” content–stuff you’d see on a TV screen, basically–can generate; content creators get access to the the gazillion eyeballs that the world’s biggest video site attracts. Examples: See the pacts that Sony (SNE), Disney (DIS), Time Warner’s (TWX) Turner, Warner Music Group (WMG) and Universal Music have hammered out in recent months.

And that sounds like the deal that YouTube and Britain’s Channel 4 have reached. Telegraph:

YouTube and Channel 4 have been in talks for at least the last six months and a contract is expected to be signed imminently. The Telegraph understands that Channel 4 has negotiated the right to sell its own advertising around its content on YouTube and share the revenue with the Google-owned site.

A senior television source close to Channel 4 said: “It was key for Channel 4 to be able to sell the advertising around its own inventory so it could extract maximum value from the deal and retain commercial control over its own property.

“When the Channel 4 content formally appears on YouTube, it will be branded exactly the same way as it is on the Channel 4 website. It will be a fully Channel 4 branded space and look as if someone has picked up 4 on Demand (Channel 4’s online catch up service) and put it on YouTube.”

…The partnership will be the first formal arrangement YouTube has agreed with a British broadcaster in which the majority of its content will be shown in full on the video-sharing site.

No comment from YouTube. If the report doesn’t pan out, I’m assuming it won’t have any impact on anyone reading this in the U.S.: The Web is worldwide, but these content deals tend to be specific to various territories, which means you won’t be able to watch British programming from the States. Fair enough: My non-U.S. readers always gripe about not being able to watch Hulu clips.

The numbers come from Nielsen’s quarterly “Three Screen” report, which measures eyeballs watching video on TV, on the Web and on mobile devices. And just like the report Nielsen put out three months ago, it shows that even while Americans gobble up more online video, they’re still watching as much TV as they ever have. More, even: The number of viewers increased by 0.9 percent, while the time they spent watching TV increased 1.5 percent.

Here’s how the numbers break down (click tables below to enlarge):

Total number of viewers:

Time spent viewing:

Two different theories, which are not mutually exclusive, may explain the ever-increasing amount of video we’re supposedly gorging on:

• We’re out of work or underemployed, and we’re filling those hours with sitcoms and dogs-on-skateboard clips.
• We’re multitasking and gorging on all of this stuff at the same time.

On that last theory: Nielsen says 57 percent of us are spending at least an hour a month watching Web video and TV at the same time. We’re much more likely to turn on the TV while we’re Web-surfing than vice versa, though.

No surprise, by the way, to see that people are spending more time watching Web video. But interesting to note that while the universe of mobile video watchers has increased, they’re spending less time watching.

For what it’s worth, Nielsen says that short-form clips–like those from Google’s (GOOG) YouTube–make up 83 percent of Web video viewing, while “name-brand TV network content” makes up the majority of mobile video. Note that Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC and Disney’s (DIS) ABC, doesn’t have a mobile option, so it can’t claim credit for those eyeballs.

Too many numbers! Time for video. Here’s a clip of the Minnesota Vikings’ (!) Brett Favre from this week’s “Monday Night Football” game. This one has been seen more than half a million times, but there’s no way it’s legal. So it will go down sooner or later–both the NFL and ESPN are pretty zealous about this stuff.

But right now it’s promoted for all to see on YouTube’s homepage. Which means there are still some kinks in the company’s vaunted “ContentID” program.

UPDATE: I’m told the trio will stick around for a few months to help out with the transition. But to what? First priority is finding a replacement for CEO Miller.

Miller announced the deal in a short blog post today.

Last.fm, which provides free, ad-supported music streamed over the Web, was the first major acquisition the broadcaster made after bringing on digital M&A pro Quincy Smith, who is making plans to set up shop on his own. CBS (CBS) sends out a steady flow of press releases touting the site’s growth–the most recent one I have, from last month, pegs its audience at 30 million monthly users, while Miller’s post says they’re up to 37.3 million–but turning online eyeballs and ears into dollars has been hard for every Web music start-up, and Last.fm is no exception.

The unit saw its headcount cut significantly during CBS’s reorg of its interactive group late last year, and last month the company combined Last.fm with the online stations from its CBS radio unit.

Here’s text of the post announcing the founders’ departure:

After two years running Last.fm within CBS we feel the time is right to begin the process of handing over the reins. This is the latest stage in a long journey for us founders, which began in a living room in East London in 2002, and took us to the headquarters of one of the biggest media companies in the world.

It’s been a privilege working with the incredible team here in our London office, and we’re extremely proud of what we’ve achieved together. Last.fm’s users have more than doubled in the last 12 months (we are now at an all-time high of 37.3M monthly unique visitors), and we’re confident the site will continue to go from strength to strength. Being a part of CBS, and the recently formed CBSi music group, continues to open up many opportunities for Last.fm. Recent product releases such as the new visual radio, and the Last.fm on XBox announcement, are an indication of how much more Last.fm will achieve.

A huge “Thank You!” has to be said to all of you in front of your computers. With your contribution, enthusiasm and scrobbles you have helped to make Last.fm into what it is today: the best place for music online. Big up yourself for that, as we say here in East London.

That’s all folks, we are going to miss you!

Here’s one small step in that evolution: Joost, the once-hyped video site, is going to start selling ads for clips it shows via its Apple (AAPL) iPhone app. Doing the heavy lifting will be FreeWheel, a well-regarded start-up that already handles ad-serving for some of the Web’s biggest video players.

As with video, everyone knows the mobile ad market will be worth something–maybe a lot–one day. But right now, there’s no there there. The Internet Advertising Bureau, for instance, doesn’t even bother to break out mobile ads in its annual breakdown of digital marketing spend.

Still, Joost needs any boost it can get: Like a lot of other video start-ups in the past few years, the company has raised an awful lot of money but hasn’t made much of a dent in the market. Maybe it can get some traction by staking an early claim to mobile video. Last week, Veoh, another well-funded video site chasing after the same eyeballs, made drastic cuts to its staff and announced that it would put its resources into a new browser-based app.

Separately, the Joost announcement is a nice get for FreeWheel, which is staffed by veterans of Google’s (GOOG) DoubleClick, and which last I heard, was looking for a significant funding round.

ComScore says that traffic to the joint venture between News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and GE’s (GE) NBC fell 10.8 percent from October to November, dropping from 5.3 million unique visitors to 4.8 million. (Hulu’s PR team notes that ComScore’s separate “VideoMetrix” panel assigned a much bigger audience to the site last month: 24 million uniques. They haven’t put out November numbers yet but I’ll update when I get them).

ComScore (SCOR) says U.S. traffic at Google’s (GOOG) YouTube also dropped that month, but by a much smaller margin–0.006 percent. And since YouTube is a global property, those numbers are less telling. Hulu, meanwhile, is a U.S.-only site (much to the dismay of blog commenters).

Apologies for not figuring out how to show you this data in graph form–I’ll figure it out eventually. For now, click to enlarge.

This makes plenty of sense: Hulu was one of two places were you could (legally) see the “Saturday Night Live” Sarah Palin clips, which were huge sensations. The other one, NBC.com, dropped a whopping 50 percent–from 14.1 million to 7.2 million, comScore says.

And all sorts of Web sites that enjoyed a bump during the run-up to the election have tailed off a bit since then. ComScore says the Huffington Post, for instance, is down 20 percent– from five million uniques to four million. Presumably Oak Investment Partners was aware of that before it sank $25 million into the site last month.

Meanwhile, Hulu still shows impressive growth. If I could have figured out how to create a graph, you’d see that Hulu has still had a huge run-up since March, when it left beta.

Speaking of beta, video site/blog punching bag Joost has logged its first full month of traffic since its Web video player became open to the public. ComScore pegs traffic at 1.1 million uniques; the company says that its data, which include global traffic, show 2.1 million.

Those aren’t huge numbers–I can think of several text-only blogs, which cost a lot less to build and operate than Joost’s site, that garner more eyeballs than that–but they’re not terrible either. Still, Joost has a lot of ground to catch up if it wants to give Hulu a run for its money.

Last but not least! Here’s an excellent clip from the smart folks at the Onion. It’s a month old, but news to me. Enjoy: