Google’s very first employee, Craig Silverstein, is leaving the company to join the high-profile online learning phenom, Khan Academy.

News of the departure first appeared yesterday in a line in a newsletter on education-tech entrepreneurship EdSurge, and the search giant confirmed the departure to me.

[UPDATE: Here's a statement from a Google spokesperson -- and not CEO Larry Page (classy and appreciative of others as ever!, Larry!) -- on Silverstein's leaving: "Craig's been with Google since the early days. He was instrumental in the development of search and made numerous contributions to Google over the years. We wish him all the best at the Khan Academy and know that he will do great things to help them promote education around the world."]

Silverstein, who was actually Google’s No. 3 employee — that would be after its pair of founders, Page and Sergey Brin — has had a variety of technology jobs at the company over the years since it was founded in 1998.

But his first — helping them build the famed and lucrative search engine itself — was perhaps his most important. An experienced techie, Silverstein worked with Brin and Page on Google, from their dorm rooms as Ph.D. students at Stanford University, to their garage days, to the giant and diversified behemoth it is today, with tens of thousands of employees.

Currently, he has been working on a variety of projects, including mentoring engineers.

Having spent some time with him over the years, I can tell you that he’s a lovely and adorkable guy, whose infectious enthusiasm and joy of tech has always embodied what I always refer to as “Good Google” (as opposed to, well, you know).

Silverstein will simply be a developer at Khan Academy’s Mountain View, Calif., offices, but I have emails for more details in to all parties.

Speaking of party — IMHO, Larry and Sergey should throw him a really nice one. Really nice — it’s well-deserved.

Here is Silverstein’s cute goodbye email to staff that I obtained (natch!):

[I couldn't possibly remember everyone who I should be sending this mail to, so please feel free to spread the word to anyone I missed!]

It is with decidedly mixed feelings that I announce, after more than 13 years, that I’m leaving Google. My last day will be Feb 10. I’ll be joining the Khan Academy as a developer.

Some of you thought this day would never come (as one person once put it: “Will you die at Google?”), and it was an extremely difficult choice. I am as passionate about Google’s mission now as I’ve ever been, and as proud of the work we’re doing to achieve it. While a lot has changed at Google over the years, I think we’ve done a remarkable job of staying true to our core mission of making the world a better place by making information more accessible and useful. I am looking forward to pursuing that same mission, though in a slightly different way, at Khan.

I’m extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to work with such smart, passionate, and interesting people — not just a few, either, but (almost :-) ) everyone I worked with. I’m grateful not just that I had so many co-workers I could respect, but even more that I had so many that I could count as friends. I will miss that most of all, and I hope you will continue to be in touch. I also accept lunch invitations!

When I write my massive 4-volume autobiography, “Craig Silverstein: the Man Behind the Legend,” I will devote an entire volume to my years at Google. I can’t emphasize enough how meaningful my time at Google has been, and how meaningful all of you have been to it. I mean it literally when I say: all the best,

craig

And here’s the video of a speech Silverstein gave at the University of North Carolina in 2008, about Google’s origins:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

The New York-based company, which sells travel deals and daily deals via email and from its Web site, said fourth-quarter revenues totaled $35.2 million, falling below analyst expectations of $38.7 million.

However, Travelzoo did manage to return a healthy profit of 40 cents a share, exceeding estimates of 35 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters, which conducted a survey of analysts.

The company is Groupon’s closest publicly held competitor, other than Google or Amazon, which don’t break out results from daily deals. Groupon was also trading lower today, falling about 3 percent, or 59 cents, to $19.49 a share. Groupon will report fourth-quarter earnings in two weeks on Feb. 8.

In a statement, CEO Chris Loughlin said despite a slower period for travel advertising in the fourth quarter, revenues in that period grew faster year over year than in any quarter in four years.

A majority of its revenues are still coming from travel. For instance, in 2011, Travelzoo reported that 57.8 percent of deals sold were for travel and only 26.7 percent came from local discounts. Search revenues coming from comparison shopping sites such as SuperSearch and Fly.com made up for the remainder.

Still, it is local that is growing the fastest. In North America, local deals grew 196 percent year over year.

The company ended the period with 21.5 million subscribers in North America and Europe, up 14 percent from the end of 2010.

It’s not entirely clear how the company will use the information. But it could mean that when users search via Google, the company will use their activities on sister sites like Gmail and YouTube to influence those users’ search results. Google hasn’t done that before.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

You want news out of Scott Thompson? Then you’d be very disappointed with the Yahoo CEO today. Not surprisingly, the new boss — who wants us to remember that he’s really only officially been at work for two weeks — says it’s too early to talk about his plans.

But he does have some, he insists. For instance:

• He has a plan to fix Yahoo’s big mess in Asia.
• And he has a plan to help fix ad sales, which have been in turnaround for nine months and are still declining.
• And he has a plan to buy some stuff to “fill in technology gaps” that will help with all of that.

But no details on any of that during the Q4 earnings call. Instead, Thompson repeated what he told Yahoo employees during his first address to them — Yahoo is both a media and technology company, and people should get their heads around that — and he laid out some big, pretty obvious ideas:

• It’s important to pay attention to users and advertisers.
• Yahoo should move fast, etc.
• He’s going to double down on some existing Yahoo projects, and cut others.

Got it? Good. More details to come, Thompson says. And yes, for the record: That is a serious Massachusetts accent on the new guy.

—————–

EARLIER

Earlier this month, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson got on the phone with Wall Street analysts, and refused to discuss the company or his plans for it in much detail.

Fair enough: He had just been hired that morning, and had barely met anyone in the company.

So now it’s been nearly three weeks. Think he’ll offer much more in the way specifics, in the wake of the company’s Q4 earnings report?

Me, neither. But Wall Street will still be hungry for any scraps it can get, whether it’s an update on the company’s Asia mess, a hint about future cost-cutting moves, or a general “here’s what I think we should be doing” state-of-the-state.

We will definitely get a chance to hear the Boston accent that seemed to charm everyone so much in early January. Time to see if it’s still as effective.

4:58 pm: Greetings! Just doing some finger exercises in advance of the call. Also looking for some Kara Swisher aviator glasses, since La Swish is in transit and cannot cover the call herself. I’d say I’ll do my best to channel her as I type, but I don’t think I could handle that.

5:00 pm: There’s time for a quick ticker check: Investors still yawning, and YHOO shares are nearly flat, after-hours. But Apple!

5:01 pm: And we’re off. On the call: Thompson and CFO Tim Morse.

5:03 pm: Thompson: Even though I’ve been here for three weeks, my official start date was only two weeks ago. Still! I had strong opinions before I arrived, and since then, I’ve been looking around: Big opportunity here.

Powerful brand, lots of visitors: 702 million globally! Advertisers like us, etc. “We’re going to work not just at scale, but with speed.” “I feel great about that, but I’m still very clear that we have a lot of work to do.”

You want details? Won’t give ’em. But I’ll talk about guiding principles:

For me, I insist “that we be balanced.” Have to think about customers, who we are, [something I missed] and how we allocate capital. I’ll come back to this in a bit.

And before we get to any of that, let’s talk about Q4 numbers and 2012 projections.

[At this point you can consult the numbers they've already put out]

Let me praise some people. And, “there’s no question” that we can do better. “And we will.” Need to get to market faster, monetize better.

5:07 pm: Here’s Tim Morse, with some numbers. [Again, you can read most of this, so I'll skip most until he gets to the "color" part.]

Challenging quarter, but I’m proud of the team. Etc.

And now, some 2011 numbers. [Again, I'll also skip this stuff.]

[Meanwhile, here's Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney's take, fresh off the grill: "Fundamental trends remain nothing to email home about. The Display Advertising results were a clear negative, and the Search Advertising results continue to remain murky. Stock buybacks are (almost) always good … Scott Thompson has his work cut out for him …"]

Some details on our display missed. We missed by $15m; $10m of that is from Europe and macroeconomic stuff.

We’re nine months into salesforce revamp. We’re doing pretty good with that. “Several major advertisers” that had bailed or cut back on Yahoo spend have made “meaningful commitments for 2012.”

Some search notes. A reminder that we extended Microsoft search deal through 2013.

We’ll get to 2012 guidance in a minute. But first, a reminder that we’re still growing visitors and page views. More of that to come. U.S. elections and Olympics will be big for us.

“In short, we’ve made progress on many fronts, but that’s not the whole story.” Revenue isn’t growing, and “we expected better.”

5:18 pm: Guidance numbers, which you can also get from the release. But they are “not reflective” of our long-term goals. Because we want to grow.

And margins will get better, too.

And yes, we’re talking about fixing our Asia mess. But we won’t be able to go into details about that on this call.

5:21 pm: Back to Thompson. Okay. So here’s more on that “balance” stuff.

First: Customers. Both our users and our advertisers — we want them both to get real value from us, “and we will focus equally on both.”

We have to get people to use us more frequently. And we need advertisers to know we like them, we really like them.

5:22 pm: Two: “Balance in who we are.” We’re a media company and a tech company. We need to be great about both. “So we end the debate about which is more important … we must do both. End of discussion.”

Three: We gotta grow fast. “When it comes to making decisions, I make them quickly, and then push to move fast, fast, fast.”

Four: We gotta balance investment resources for today, tomorrow and long-term. Right allocation of capital is very important. Most resources have to go to “current core business.” But a lot also has to go to the products of tomorrow and the next 12 months. And also a “small but meaningful” amount into products that won’t show up for a year or more. We need a vibrant long-term product pipeline, and we have to consider businesses that don’t look anything like what we’re doing today.

But need to be very clear — not about restarting investment cycle. Refocusing, which means there are some things that we’re going to stop doing [that is, we'll have shutdowns and cuts].

I have some very clear ideas about the specifics of what we’ll do. But I won’t tell you about them.

Still, some big ideas: Customer experiences, and data.

5:26 pm: On customer experience: 702 million users a month. Did I mention that? Yes, I did. I’ll say it again. “But the sheer numbers of users will not get us to where we need to be.” We have to improve their experience while they’re here: Better interfaces, faster speed, deeper and “much more relevant content.”

And we need advertisers to get better results, and spend more money with Yahoo. [Don't do the opposite!]

On to data: We can use data to make the experience better for users — tweak layout, content, flow of the page and advertisers. “Nobody has done that yet on the Web.” “I know lots of companies talk about using data.” But we mean it. Crucial for you to understand that data is core to our plans. It “will be the key component for driving innovation at Yahoo.”

5:30 pm: So there’s some insight for you. Now on to strategic-review update. Roy said on last call that BOD considered a lot of alternatives. “It’s important for you to know that the company remains open to anything that’s good for our shareholders.” but we’re “focusing on what appears most promising.” “The work is ongoing, and I won’t say more about that today,” but it’s going to be good for shareholders.

Here’s the takeaway: There’s plenty of opportunity here. “Much bigger than the outside world imagines for us today.”

I’m here because we can do more.

5:32 pm: Alrighty. Q&A time.

Q: Please talk about that Interclick deal. What will they contribute in revenue and earnings? Also, update on revenue per search, please.

Morse: $25M of cost in Q1 from ICLK. $10M in revenue. We expect revenue to ramp throughout the year. As far as RPS increase, Microsoft is doing a nice job, and so are our sales guys.

“We’re definitely closing the gap” when it comes to search. But a reminder that we have a guarantee though March 2013.

Q: On that balance thing: How important will Q&A be here? Big deals in the works? Also, what do you see in macro environment?

Thompson: I think there’s going to be some stuff that we need that we don’t have, and so we’ll probably have to be “aggressive” in the market. “I’m relatively certain that there will be things that interest us” to help us “fill in technology gaps.”

Morse: Europe wasn’t great last quarter, and early indications are the same now. Not expecting much change this quarter, anywhere.

Q: How about a dividend? Also, how do your big principles play into display ad turnaround?

Thompson: “Too early” to imagine dividends. On turning around display: I’ve tried to spend a lot of time trying to figure out our problems there. “We are after that with a very high sense of urgency.” Number-one priority for now.

Q: Also on display. Any sacred cows going forward? Also, on premium video — how are your original series performing?

Thompson: Not sure how to interpret that cow question. “We are understanding and evaluating all options … personally, I’m being very aggressive.”

Morse: Last month, we had nine out of the top 10 original shows in U.S. We don’t give out revenue and pageview and streaming numbers, but “assume healthy growth there.” But more work to be done.

Q: Tim: Please give us more detail on premium display pricing. Scott: You guys made a lot of buzz with that Tom Hanks show announcement. Please discuss economics. Also: Experiment, or prelude to more?

Morse: Like I said, premium display below where we wanted, but it was in the range. And Interclick will make that better.

Thompson: Yeah, that was great buzz at CES. “It was more than the event itself,” everyone had nice things to say. “I was pleasantly surprised.” Not going to share details on dollars. So far, “we’ve had reasonably good success” with the originals we’ve done past.

Q: You talked about doing things Yahoo hasn’t done before. Like what? Also, for Morse: Shouldn’t he be worried about Yahoo’s share on mobile devices?

Thompson: Too early for me talk about strategically what we’re doing.

Morse: On search — yeah, we want to grow our O&O. In terms of mobile share, it’s so early right now. “It’s very intriguing in terms of how we’re going to play.”

But new revenue streams from mobile are even more important than existing ones.

Thompson: Important to point out that “no winner” has shown up yet when it comes to mobility. [Really?]

Thompson: Did I mention data? Let me mention it again. We have tons of it. It’s going to be huge for us. Data and technology can help us predict what users want to do next; it’s a huge advantage for us.

Q: Carol called this a communications company. Terry Semel called it a media company. And you?

Thompson: I had this all-hands meeting, and I said it again today. There’s this long-standing debate here. But “we better be darn good at both. In fact, I think we ought to great.”

Morse: Discussion of financials. Gap between reporter and subject.

Q: You said you’d realign around key areas of focus. But what’s new about that? Are there new verticals? Also, since you’re talking about investing, how does that jibe with operating margin goals?

Thompson: We’re working really hard to evaluate options. “Providing more detail for you today … is just a little bit premature.” “I actually feel a little bit bad” that I can’t tell you more.

“Just a little bit longer, if you will, before we get really specific” on that.

Morse: Yes, we’re going to spend money. But we’re also going to stop those projects, so we can move money around.

Q: On display: Seems like big opportunity to monetize your leftover inventory. Talk about that, please.

Morse: Yep. That’s one reason why we bought Interclick. (Also, theoretically, the reason for this.)

Q: Talk more about Interclick. $10m revenue, $25M costs. But that doesn’t look like what they were doing before you bought them — they had $2M EBITDA per quarter. What’s going on?

Morse: A lot of what they were doing before was related to Yahoo, so we have to eliminate some of that for reporting. Also, we’re building out so we can do more with that. Also, we have to start amortizing intangibles. Also! “This is the first quarter, right out the gate.”

Q: For Scott: You talked about growth before. Can you talk about growth via acquisition, and new business versus growth of existing business? Also, please talk about mobile traffic.

Thompson: I’ve talked to customers. “The conversations were fascinating.” People want us to grow. They also told us “exactly what we have to do to get more of their spend, today.” We can do that. We don’t have to grow solely via M&A. “The really good news is, the customers are there, they’re cheering for us.”

As far as mobile, I haven’t really seen the data. But I’m sure it’s growing really fast. It did at the last business I was at.

Morse: Right.

That’s it, everyone. All done for today.

Yahoo will report its fourth quarter earnings tomorrow, after the markets close, which most expect to be lackluster compared to a year ago.

To call this report a surprise would be, well, wrong.

In fact, it will be the 13th quarter in which the Silicon Valley Internet giant has done worse that the previous year. (This has happened as Internet advertising has boomed for sites like Google and Facebook, as a point of reference.)

Welcome aboard, new CEO Scott Thompson! Now, what are you going to do about it?

Probably cut costs first, including staff, and try to quickly figure out an all-new, this-time-it’ll-take strategery about what to do to turnaround the much beleaguered Yahoo.

But, first, the depressing quarter to deliver again.

The estimates for that weak performance have a range, but the consensus of analysts is expecting revenue to be $1.19 billion on profits of 23 to 24 cents. If Yahoo has managed to rein in costs more than expected, some analysts are hoping for a slightly better report.

Still, all the indications are for more negative signs in user engagement, search share, display advertising stats and more.

Thus, we await the light at the end of the tunnel.

As Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney noted in his cheat-sheet analysis:

“Valuation remains intriguing, but we’re still waiting for convincing Top-Line Turnaround Story Proof. With new CEO Scott Thompson, we believe YHOO will be another wait-and-see turn-around story.”

Of course, much of the action is taking place elsewhere, with the company ferreting away at the deal to sell off a big stake in Yahoo’s Asian assets and also subtracting and adding new board members.

But tomorrow, it’s once more unto the Wall Street breach, dear friends, or close the wall up with our purple dread.

Until the results are in, here’s a recent video I did for WSJ.com’s online Digits show on the possible layoffs at Yahoo:

Organizing your inbox might sound tempting. The Radicati Group reports that the average employee spends about 25 percent of their day on email; by 2013, approximately 507 billion email messages will be sent each day. Many people dream of hyperproductive days unhampered by junk mail, forwards and unimportant exchanges. We’re envious of (and slightly annoyed by) friends who accomplish that “inbox zero” feat (and then post about it on Facebook or Twitter — you know who you are).

But before you get obsessive-compulsive about color-coding and labeling emails, keep in mind that over-organizing doesn’t necessarily solve your email problems. In fact, you’ll likely remember less of the information that’s in the emails if you do that.

A study conducted last year by IBM Research — originally posted on MIT’s Technology Review — found that while “active foldering” reduces the complexity of the inbox, there’s a lack of systematic data about the extent to which these folders are actually used, so it’s hard to determine whether the hours occupied by filing emails to folders is time well spent.

Also, “frequent filers” tend to remember less than non-frequent filers about their email messages. The IBM Research study, which analyzed 345 frequent users’ methods of finding emails, found that email users tended to have pretty good memories when it came to content, purpose, or task-related information in emails, recalling more than 80 percent of such information; those who moved things into folders were less likely to remember these things, possibly because they were not frequently exposed to the information in the inbox.

Of course, users aren’t going to remember everything that’s conveyed in every email. But when it comes to effective search — which in some cases negates the need for all that foldering — remembering key words is, well, key.

Lastly, the study suggests that email threading is the better alternative to manually moving emails into designated folders. People with high thread-count emails were less likely to use or need to use folders, and people with more threads were less likely to need to scroll through their inboxes, as well, suggesting that threads were an effective way to compress inbox information.

Gmail already has a pretty efficient search function and collates emails into threads. But as part of Google’s efforts to push Google+ in other areas — like search — the company is also suggesting Gmail solutions through Google+. In fact, new Gmail users don’t have a choice when it comes to Google+; building a profile is part of the sign-up process. (Google’s current Gmail user base: 350 million; Google’s social network users: Murky.) Searching for emails through Google+’s circles seems a bit confusing for the average user, though, and would benefit only those users who have spent a lot of time building up their Google+ contacts.

For those looking for outside apps to aid in email organization, some of the more popular ones include Xobni and Postbox. Others, such as Shortmail and Clarify, think simpler, shorter emails could put you on the path to inbox nirvana.

(Photo courtesy of robep/Flickr)

Also, it helps if they can’t steal it.

That’s the takeaway from a new survey from the IFPI, the music industry’s global trade group. It says global digital music sales grew 8 percent last year; that’s the first time that growth rate has increased since 2004, when the IFPI started tracking the statistic.

A good chunk of that increase may have come from subscription music services like Spotify and Deezer. The IFPI says subscription services have 13 million paying users, up from eight million last year.* There are also smaller increases in sales at more conventional outlets like Apple and Amazon, which generate much more revenue for the industry overall.

And while digital music sales still make up a minority of the music industry’s revenue worldwide, they are increasingly important: They now account for 32 percent of sales, up from 29 percent last year. (In the U.S., digital just edged physical last year, for the first time.)

All of which sounds fairly straightforward. But the IFPI is a trade group; it wants to hammer at one of its key points, which is that piracy is a big problem for the industry, which has seen sales cut in half since the Napster era. It figures more than a quarter of all Web users “access unauthorized services on a monthly basis.”

So, if piracy is a problem, why are sales increasing? In part, the trade group argues, because of anti-piracy legislation and industry moves.

The report highlights France’s “three strikes” rule, which allows the government to fine pirates and take away their Internet access. It cites a study arguing that French iTunes sales have increased more than 20 percent because of the policy, and the suggestion is clear: This would be a good idea worldwide.

The IFPI, which has singled out Google for criticism in the past, once again complains that the search engine makes it too easy to find illegal stuff. It also clearly went to the printer before the weekend, because its report refers to SOPA/PIPA as works in progress that are “set to be debated further in early 2012.”

*That number sounds several million high to me, but perhaps my rough estimate is missing a couple of big players.

Nerd fight!

Blake Ross

A weekend coding effort, led by Facebook rabble-rouser Blake Ross, gave birth to a browser bookmarklet called “don’t be evil” that rewrites Google’s personalized search results to include content from other social networks. (Ross’s official title is Director of Product, and he was previously a co-founder of Firefox.)

Ross said engineers from Twitter and Myspace also helped out with the bookmarklet, but he didn’t name them. The group launched a Web site today, at focusontheuser.org.

This gets slightly complicated, but you can install the bookmarklet yourself in Chrome, Firefox and Safari, or watch a video about how it works. After you do a normal Google search with personalized results turned on, you can click on the bookmarklet to get an updated version of the results that includes links to Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Quora, Tumblr, Foursquare, CrunchBase, FriendFeed, Stack Overflow, GitHub and Google+.

I ran into a bunch of hiccups when I tried the bookmarklet out in Chrome, but it worked pretty smoothly in Firefox.

Here’s the background: A couple of weeks ago, when it launched “Search plus Your World” by default for English-language users, Google said that other social networks like Facebook and Twitter don’t let it crawl deeply enough to provide “secure and consistent access” to their users’ private content. So, SPYW could, for the most part, only include Google+ content.

That’s a bit of a ruse, because there’s lots of public content from social networks that Google already indexes. It’s not hard to find Twitter handles and LinkedIn profiles in Google search results. When SPYW launched, Twitter loudly called foul, and people at Facebook complained more quietly.

The thing is, SPYW doesn’t just give preference to private Google+ content in personalized search results. It also actively promotes Google+ profiles and other public content in various locations throughout the search page.

Google+ profiles — but not content from any other social network — now show up in a new “People and Pages” box that sometimes appears in place of ads on the right side of Google’s search-results page, as a type-ahead suggested query within the search box, and interspersed high up in search results for many brands.

Ross and his buddies used Google’s own organic search results and “Rich Snippets” tool to find the social network content that Google already indexes and ranks normally. The bookmarklet then integrates those diverse results into places where Google+ content is exclusively promoted.

This was an independent and unofficial effort, but Facebook is hardly disavowing it. In fact, a Facebook spokesman praised Ross’s voice-over talent (that’s him speaking in the video) in an email to AllThingsD.

While this feistiness makes for a fun story, the moral high ground might be a dangerous spot for Ross to claim.

Facebook notoriously hoards its members’ friend graphs and user emails, doling out access only to partners that it doesn’t see as direct competitors. Users who wish to remove and transport their data to another service are stifled at every turn.

Further, Facebook limits access to search engines, having required Microsoft’s Bing to sign a deal to access content that’s mostly public already. And it’s not like the company provides its own democratic search engine to compete with Google.

(Photo credit: Flickr user StampyTurtle)

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

But it doesn’t use Facebook or any identifying information. Instead, Expedia surfaces the best deals found by other travelers, anonymously, for flights and hotel rooms, based on your location.

The site will list the best deals for three time periods: tonight, this weekend or next weekend. Customers can search for hotels or flights based on a couple dozen destinations.

For example, this weekend, nights at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers cost $113 and the cheapest flight out of Los Angeles tonight is to Seattle for $252 roundtrip.

The process is similar to other flash sales sites that sell apparel or other items at a discount based on inventory. Many other flash sales sites focus on travel, too, such as Gilt Groupe’s Jetsetter. However, there’s one big difference with this service. The deals are being found by other customers searching the site. The service is not being driven by a special sales relationship between Expedia and the suppliers.

That probably means the deals are not unique to Expedia and can be found on other travel aggregation sites, but at the same time, Expedia didn’t have to hire a sales team or build out a lot of infrastructure to support the feature.

“In a sense, the millions of people who come to Expedia are now serving as your own personal travel agent, helping you find the best and most popular deals from your home city,” said Joe Megibow, VP and GM of Expedia, in a statement.

The Web site is very simple to navigate and takes out a lot of the headaches of searching millions of listings. That also means that the selection is limited to around six results for each time period — in other words, not a ton of destinations or hotels to pick from. Cancun was offering six hotel rooms — some for as low as $40 a night — for this weekend. Orlando also listed six hotel rooms, all under $100 a night.

This is not Expedia’s first experiment in the deals space.

Last summer, it launched a partnership with Groupon that sells vouchers for vacations around the world. It said it successfully sold 15,000 travel deals in the first three days of launching that partnership, but wasn’t entirely satisfied with the model yet. It also launched a program called ASAP (A Sudden Amazing Price), which lists deals at 9 am PT and is bookable for 12 hours only.

Earlier this month, investors pushed Google shares up past $670 — the highest they’ve ever been. They’ve since pulled back a bit, but not for performance reasons: The Street still expects Google to post net revenue of around $8.4 billion — that’s up about 30 percent over the previous year — and earnings of around $10.46 a share — up about 20 percent.

If there are questions out there about Google, the Street seems to think they’re about what could happen — government regulation, a misstep with the $12.5 billion Motorola Mobility deal, etc. — than what just happened over the last three months.

Analysts who have been listening to search marketers say they don’t see any real signs of slowdown over the last quarter, even as other ad businesses have been roughed up. (We’ll ignore, for now, an outlier report from Kantar Media which reports a huge and puzzling decrease in paid search.)

As always, there is lots of interesting stuff going on at Google. And, as usual, you can expect Larry Page and company to say very little about it, other than making vague comments about the strength of their core search business, and some acknowledgement that their video, mobile and display ads are starting to become very significant businesses of their own.

In a fantasy world, we’d like to hear Page, et al, talk about what they really think about Facebook, and whether that move to shove Google+ pages into Google search results is as telling as it seems to be. We’d also like to hear more detail about their plans for Motorola, assuming the deal goes through early this year. Don’t hold your breath.

For more grounded speculation, we can consult this cheat sheet from Citi’s Mark Mahaney, which lets you see how different results might move GOOG shares. We continue to find these summaries as useful as ever (click image to enlarge):

Reuters reports that the EC will likely make that decision by March. “I will receive comments from the case team towards the end of the first quarter,” said EC antitrust commissioner Joaquin Almunia. “I do not expect anything sooner. Let us see.”

Let us see, indeed. There are rumblings that the EC is compiling a Statement of Objections detailing Google’s various alleged abuses of its market dominance and could drop it in CEO Larry Page’s lap sometime this spring.

Of course, Google is facing regulatory scrutiny in the United States as well. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission said it would expand its antitrust probe of the company to include its controversial “search, plus your world” feature, which introduces social content from the company’s Google+ service into users’ search results.

According to multiple sources, the long-anticipated public offering of Facebook is now likely to come in the third week of May.

That means that the company must file its IPO documents within the next month, given that the review by the Securities and Exchange Commission usually takes about three to four months.

That’s if there are no issues, of course, such as a turbulent market or thornier-than-usual questions from regulators that require amending the filing.

Groupon, for example, filed for its IPO in early June, but did not go public until five months later in November.

The usual caveat on the late-May timing (even though I called 143 people on this one): This IPO planning could all change, in a New York minute, to another month.

In any case, the Facebook IPO is expected to be one of the largest Web offerings ever — with some reports saying the company will be raising $10 billion on a $100 billion valuation. (The valuation and raise, sources tell me, will be much lower.)

That amount is presumably to match its huge consumer growth and revenue explosion. Users now number 800 million — a figure that is likely to hit one billion this year. And revenue, which was reportedly close to $4 billion in 2011, is expected to be higher by another third in 2012.

Facebook will need such oomph if it is to impress investors, although the social networking site’s leadership is still warning that its focus is products over dollars.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week, for example, co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg hedged the point, even as he sang his same familiar strategic tune of the last few years.

“The thing to take away isn’t that we don’t care [about business]. People for years were asking me why aren’t we trying to make more money,” he said. “I would say I’m trying to build a business for the long term and it was clearly the right strategy.”

While admirably I’ll-row-my-way in tone, Zuckerberg needs a public offering heft more than ever, as Facebook’s battles with rivals — most especially Google — escalate.

Just last week, the monocratically-inclined search giant ham-handedly shoved its own social networking service, Google+, into its results, in a move that could severely disadvantage Facebook.

Thus, into the Wall Street breach, to get a giant pile of dough to fight back!

But, unlike Google’s more kookified 2004 IPO, sources said Facebook’s is probably going to hew to a more traditional offering script.

That is likely to include a hefty consortium of irksome investment bankers — think firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley on top of the filings, and a spate of smaller ones (Allen & Co.) below, and you have the approximately accurate idea.

And, while shot-caller-in-chief Zuckerberg will be the one key voice in the IPO, the man to watch has been and will be CFO David Ebersman.

The longtime Genentech exec, who came to Facebook in 2009, has been doing all the heavy lifting in preparation for the IPO, said sources, and will continue to do so.

Facebook declined to comment (but I would too, if I were them).

And that puts Bing in second place behind Google in the market researcher’s search rankings. For the month of December, the search sovereign carved out a nearly 66 percent share of the market.

In other words, the gap between first and second place in search remains massive, and there’s a lot of work yet to be done to narrow it. Even accounting for the “Powered by Bing” results of Microsoft’s chimeric partner-rival Yahoo, Bing still had only a 26.5 percent share.

Twitter lead the charge of critics, saying this was an egregious move for the search company whose mission is to “organize the world’s information.” Meanwhile, Google said that the restrictions Twitter puts around its data make it impossible to search properly.

But this problem of indexing, archiving, sorting and searching the mountains of data across online social networks is bigger than that one spat.

When it comes to social search products, the default seems to be crippled and half-baked. Especially for companies that make their own social networks.

Search may not be one of the core activities on social networks today, but that’s probably in part because the existing tools — both for searching within a particular social network and across multiple social networks — are so lame.

There are some relatively good reasons why social search is hard, but none of them seem insurmountable:

• Competing social networks won’t give each other access to their social graphs and data feeds.
• Privacy settings: Search obviously needs to be respectful to only expose content that people have permission to see. That’s a hard calculation to make on the fly. Plus, since social networking content is so personal, it’s important to respect the settings of content that’s been deleted or made private.
• Ingesting and analyzing tons of data in real time is also hard.
• Ranking content that social network users post can be different than ranking Web pages. A lot of the time, those posts may only be interesting to a small set of people, but every once in a while they are hugely important.

The business deals and access to data are the biggies. Before this latest Goog-Twit war, Google and Facebook tussled over importing friend lists. Facebook is particularly unfriendly to most search engines; it clamps down tightly on access even to its users’ public content.

As for the technical challenges: It’s 2012, people, figure it out! The point is delivering relevant content to users, which should be a core expertise for all of you.

“Google plus Your World” is not the first lame social search product. (And to be fair, the product itself doesn’t seem that lame; it’s more the lack of other networks’ data.)

For instance, Facebook’s feature for searching user posts is so buried within its interface that it almost might as well not exist. (Type a search term into the top bar on Facebook, then move your cursor down to the bottom of all the results, and click to see more. Then, on that next page, scroll past everything again to see “Posts by Friends.”)

And Twitter doesn’t even give users access to their own archive of tweets!

Google+ is actually the only social network with reasonable internal search — it gives options to search posts from everyone, only people in a user’s Circles, or only personal content.

Bing has perhaps the broadest approach of any major player, because it has deals with both Facebook and Twitter — and because Microsoft doesn’t really do social.

Bing does feature Facebook content and usernames in search, but mostly pages that a user’s friends have publicly liked. That’s only scratching the surface of what people do on Facebook.

And while Bing may have re-upped the deal that Google lacks for Twitter’s real-time “Firehose” of tweets, it’s not doing much with all that data. Tweets seem to be relegated to a separate page outside Bing’s main search results.

There are plenty of start-ups getting this kind of stuff done. Topsy tackles both Twitter and Google+ search. Greplin indexes users’ personal content across all of their Web services. Klout analyzes social graphs on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and others, to determine which users are interesting and relevant. Katango (which Google bought) and Jildy identify clusters within friend networks to understand different contexts.

It seems about time for the big guys to get their acts together.

(Image courtesy of Flickr user recursion_see_recursion)

It’s significant for the search giant to embrace social networking so fully. But there’s a caveat. Only one social network is included: Google+.

To put this in context: The content created by users of Facebook, Twitter and other social networks is mostly inaccessible to search — due to privacy settings, limited real-time APIs and competitive reasons. Posts on social networks basically go into a black hole, save for a few efforts like Bing’s Facebook integration.

The new Google search features don’t fix any of that. What they do is make social content from Google+ more prominent in Google search.

By default, Google search results pages will show personal content when it's available for logged-in users.

To be sure, in a world where everyone used Google+, this would be huge. And part of the reason Google is doing this is to get more people to use Google+. (The seven-month-old service currently has tens of millions of registered users.)

Google calls the new features “Search plus Your World.” The biggest change is that search results pages now include private and personal content in standard search results by default. This is only content that the searcher has permission to view based on per-item privacy settings. And it’s only Google+ posts and Google+ and Picasa photos for now.

Prominent Google+ users will now show up in the right column of Google's search results page.

The second-biggest change is that relevant and influential Google+ people and pages will now be highlighted at the top of the right side of the search results page, in a space is normally reserved for ad units.

So, for example, if you search for “music,” you’re likely to see a promotion to add Google+’s No. 1 user Britney Spears to your Google+ Circles. If you click on the Spears link and don’t have a Google+ account, you’ll be prompted to create one.

And then, lastly, Google’s search box will now autocomplete Google+ usernames for people who are in the searcher’s network of friends and pages, as well as other prominent users.

The new features are planned to go live for the English version of Google.com today, and expand to other versions soon. Users can opt out of personal search by visiting Google without logging in or turning the feature off on the search settings page.

Now, each time they search, logged-in users will be able to toggle between a personal view — which includes Google’s preexisting personalization and social search features like +1 recommendations — and a global view, which will have only very limited personalization, like language and geography.

Yesterday, when I had the chance to talk to Google Fellow Ben Gomes about the new features, I asked, “So, if Google is all about organizing the world’s information, why is it only organizing the personal information people have given Google+?”

Here’s Gomes’s response: “The key thing here is we only have access to content on Google. We’re open to other types of content, but in order to provide secure and consistent access, we can only provide what’s in Google, where we know the privacy settings and have the relevant graph and signals.”

Updates: Google’s Plans to Promote Google+ in Search Get a Poor Reception, Twitter Complains About Google Giving Preference to Google+ Content

The Hankook Ilbo reports that the Korean Fair Trade Commission believes Google interefered with a KFTC raid of its South Korean headquarters by deleting pertinent documents instructing its employees to work from home. The agency had been looking for materials supporting complaints that Google is allegedly limiting access to local search engines on Android smartphones.

If the agency determines that Google did indeed obstruct its investigation, it could slap the company with a fine of up to 200 million won. Which, aside from the negative PR that would accompany it, isn’t nearly as bad as it sounds — about $172,000 at current exchange rates.

Reached for comment, Google said that it is cooperating with the KFTC, but flat-out denied accusations that it deleted documents or instructed employees to telecommute to impede the investigation. The company also said it has not been told that the Commission is considering fines.

(Image courtesy of Flickr/toughkidcst)

The partnership understandably ended once Microsoft’s big search rival, Google, acquired The Dealmap in August.

“We can confirm that Bing is no longer partnering with The Dealmap and is now partnering with local and daily deal aggregator 8coupons,” a Microsoft spokesperson said. “We’re excited about the partnership with 8coupons and to be able to offer our customers access to great deals and discounts from across the Web — all in one place.”

A spokesperson for 8coupons also confirmed the partnership, adding that it started to replace The Dealmap a couple of weeks ago.

Rather than build a Groupon copycat as Google and Amazon have done, Microsoft has decided to partner with an aggregator that collects offers from various providers around the Web. Deals delivered by 8coupons come from Restaurant.com, Yelp, LivingSocial and GiltCity, among many others, as shown on the Bing Deals homepage.

Google’s purchase of The Dealmap was relatively small, especially compared to its failed $6 billion offer to buy Groupon. So far, The Dealmap is being used for the underpinnings of a pilot project that Google Offers has rolled out in the Bay Area.

In San Francisco, Google works with more than a dozen deal providers so that it can offer a variety of deals every day. It believes that in order to have relevant offers for all types of consumers, you need a lot of good deals, not just one a day.

Is that a big deal? Depends on whom you ask.

Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan, who sussed this out yesterday, has two big problems with the notion.

The first is that in at least one case a blogger’s post linked to Google in seeming violation of Google’s policy against so-called “paid links.” Sullivan’s bigger beef is that the content of the posts themselves consists of a video ad and some barely sensical text — the kind of thing that Google is trying to flush out of its search results by tweaking its algorithms.

So what’s going on? I’ve asked Google reps for comment, but I’m still waiting for them to get back from vacation. [UPDATE - they have, see below] But Unruly Media, the London-based company which ran the campaign for Google, was happy to answer. (Yup – Google, which dominates both Web advertising and Web video, relies on an outsider to promote its Web video ads.)

There’s nothing wrong here, says Unruly CEO Scott Button, except for what appears to be a one-off technical mistake by a single blogger. Here’s his email response:

Yes, it’s a campaign we were running at the end of December.

There’s a good response by Andrew Girdwood here.

Andrew’s absolutely right — we don’t ask bloggers to link to the advertiser’s site. It’s just not part of our business model. We help advertisers distribute video content and that’s what we get paid for. All links from the video player itself are wrapped in Javascript, so although Google can follow them, they don’t influence search engine rankings. Even though we don’t ask bloggers to link, we do advise them to use nofollow if they do link to the advertiser’s site. This is really important and they should do it to protect themselves as much as the advertiser.

As far as I’m aware, there was one link in one post that was not marked nofollow. This was corrected as soon as we became aware of it.

We’re always completely upfront and transparent with bloggers that we are running commercial campaigns and who we’re working for. We always require that bloggers disclose any commercial incentive to post video content. We always require that bloggers disclose even on related tweets that they might do off their own bats.

It’s also a key part of how we operate that we don’t tell bloggers what or how to write. It’s really important that opinions expressed and the tone of voice belong to the author not the advertiser. Occasionally that leads to human error, as here, so we’re always really happy to have these kinds of example flagged and will sort them out as quickly as we possibly can.

Note that Button doesn’t address Sullivan’s complaint that the text in the bloggers’ post is barely better than garbage. That stuff may not be elegant, but it does seem to work — Unruly says its ad network reaches 725 million people a month.

UPDATE: Google has offered a response, and it doesn’t sync with Button’s. Here’s a quote from a Google spokesperson:

“Google never agreed to anything more than online ads. We have consistently avoided paid sponsorships, including paying bloggers to promote our products, because these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users. We’re now looking at what changes we need to make to ensure that this never happens again.”

And here’s more along those lines, via Essence Digital, another Google ad vendor, this time posted on a Google+ page:

“We want to be perfectly clear here: Google never approved a sponsored-post campaign. They only agreed to buy online video ads. Google have consistently avoided paid postings to promote their products, because in their view these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users.

In this case, Google were subjected to this activity through media that encouraged bloggers to create what appeared to be paid posts, were often of poor quality and out of line with Google standards. We apologize to Google who clearly didn’t authorize this.”

All of this back-and-forth finger pointing might seem odd to the outside world, but it’s not uncommon in online ads, where money and marching orders pass through multiple points on their way from the original customer to the site that runs the ad.

Here’s the video ad, by the way. I guess I should disclose that Google is not paying me to post this:

The move to beef up communications expertise at the prominent Silicon Valley venture firm continues: Sequoia Capital has hired Andrew Kovacs, a well-regarded senior manager from Google, for a new job to help its portfolio companies with public relations and other related issues, sources said.

Google’s top flack Rachel Whetstone told staff about the move this past week, sources said, which will take place in mid-January.

Kovacs (pictured here, looking very GQ), who has been at the search giant for five years, has most recently headed PR for its apps unit.

His appointment comes after competing firms, including Andreessen Horowitz and Kleiner Perkins, bolstered talent to the comms areas of their firms, in order to better service the companies they invest in.

This is especially important to early-stage start-ups and their often young entrepreneurs, who usually have little experience with the media or with marketing. But such expertise is increasingly important in the crowded and ever-noisier tech sector, as companies try to rise above the fray.

Sequoia already has a longtime marketing partner, Mark Dempster, to whom Kovacs will be reporting, serving the firm’s companies in the U.S. and Israel. Kovacs will not be working on PR for Sequoia itself.

Some of Sequoia’s better-known start-ups include Dropbox, Tumblr and Eventbrite.

Competitors say Google is abusing its power in Web search to gain sway over the $110 billion online travel business.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

It’s the typically newsless time around Christmas and New Year’s, but for once there has actually been a lot going on at Yahoo.

Last week, the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s typically moribund board decided to move ahead with negotiations to sell part of its stake in China’s Alibaba Group, as well as all of its shares in Yahoo Japan.

While that is still not a done deal, it adds clarity to the Yahoo mishegas, as current leaders there seek to turn around the company’s lagging fortunes.

Now, as Yahoo continues to contemplate a pair of partial investment bids by private equity firms Silver Lake and TPG Capital into 2012, more focus will be on the selection of a CEO candidate to take over, sources said.

While I have floated some names that have been contemplated — such as Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson, former aQuantive and Microsoft exec Brian McAndrews, and board member David Kenny — I have collected some more that seem to be getting the once-over and are being mentioned internally as well as externally.

Sources said that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee at Yahoo, which is run by independent director Patti Hart, has been looking for someone with definite public company experience, as well as expertise in large-scale management.

As to talent, candidates seem to be either good at running big platforms, or deeply knowledgeable about advertising and media as well as technology.

Another important criteria, said sources: Someone who is “collaborative” and nonconfrontational. As in, not like the former and very pugnacious CEO Carol Bartz, who was fired in September.

Thus, here’s another trio of candidates to consider, while we wait — and who knows how long that will be given that the Asian activity could have tired out for a bit this usually slow-moving board:

Chris Liddell: The former CFO of Microsoft is an interesting name that just popped up recently, and it makes some sense when you think about the possible mindset of the Yahoo board.

Liddell, who has a charming New Zealand accent, did a short stint, from January of 2010 to March of this year, as CFO at General Motors. Recently married to another former Microsoft exec, he has since been living in New York.

He apparently loves living in the Big Apple.

But when he left GM, Liddell made it clear he wanted to go for a top job next. He was among the candidates for a recent search for a CEO of Time Warner’s Time Inc. (an effort that was run by exec search firm Heidrick & Struggles, which is also conducting the Yahoo hunt).

Known as tough and decisive, he certainly is qualified to deal with complex financial situations, such as the one in which Yahoo now finds itself knee-deep. One knock: Little product or advertising experience.

Laura Desmond: While certainly a dark horse, Desmond has been queried by Heidrick, said several sources.

She is CEO of Starcom MediaVest Group, a subsidiary of Publicis, one of the largest media planning and buying agencies, making Desmond one of advertising’s most prominent players.

Well-known in Yahoo’s key market, she is considered a savvy and smart exec with a wry sense of humor.

I happen to particularly like one line from one of her bios:

“Ms. Desmond’s career has been driven by two caveats: Take intelligent risks and learn more from failure than from success.”

She could learn a lot at Yahoo. (I know, easy jab, but it works!)

David Rosenblatt: The former DoubleClick CEO, who went on to a big ad job at Google after it paid $3.2 billion for the company, is also a long shot, mostly by his own choosing.

The sharp exec is always on the short list of CEO candidates for a lot of big, splashy online jobs, but he seems to want to swim his own way.

Case in point: He was recently named CEO of New York-based 1stdibs, a relatively obscure online marketplace known among antique dealers and interior designers looking for one-of-a-kind furniture, art and lighting.

Yes, that’s right: Fancy lamps.

Rosenblatt also serves on the boards at Group Commerce, Twitter and IAC.

All that Internet ad and e-commerce experience is exactly why Rosenblatt would be one of the better choices for CEO of Yahoo. But, for him, I would guess taking such a job is probably in the life’s-too-short category.

More to come, obvi!

Search Engine Land’s Barry Schwartz notes that the doodle is already showing up on other Google properties, though the accompanying message seems to vary depending on the territory. Google Australia, for instance, goes with “Happy Holidays,” but Google Korea wishes visitors a “Merry Christmas.” If you were desperate for news on a pre-Christmas Eve Friday morning, you might try to make a controversy out of that. But that would be silly.

Earlier this week, Google and Mozilla said they had struck a deal to renew their search royalty agreement for another three years.

What the pair declined to add: The search giant will pay just under $300 million per year to be the default choice in Mozilla’s Firefox browser, a huge jump from its previous arrangement, due to competing interest from both Yahoo and Microsoft.

Sources said this total amount — just under $1 billion — was the minimum revenue guarantee for delivering search queries garnered from consumers using Firefox.

Google’s main rival in the bid, sources said, was Microsoft’s Bing search service, which was aggressively trying to hip-check it from the main search spot on the browser.

That’s because the software giant has been spending a lot of money in efforts to grow Bing’s market share in the search market.

Microsoft, of course, also owns the still-dominant Internet Explorer browser, but Google’s Chrome has recently been making major gains over both IE and Mozilla’s Firefox.

Still, Mozilla’s recent negotiations with both companies was about search market share.

Yahoo was also in the mix, even though Microsoft powers its search technology, because a hookup with Firefox was considered a plus in holding on to its declining search market share.

But the deal, which was being pushed hard by Yahoo’s Chief Product Officer Blake Irving and its search head Shashi Seth, was determined to be too costly for Yahoo.

Costly indeed, since the new price is much higher than Google had previously ponied up to Mozilla. In 2010, Google contributed 84 percent of Mozilla’s $123 million in revenue.

A previous version of the partnership had expired at the end of November, and the new talks were done against a backdrop of simmering tension between Google and Mozilla over Chrome.

As Liz Gannes wrote earlier this week:

Since the first search royalty deal was signed in 2008, Google’s own Chrome browser has become a significant competitor. Just last month, Chrome overtook Firefox in global usage for the first time, according to StatCounter. Both browsers — software which is used to navigate the Internet — have about 25 percent market share.

Even with the new default deal with Google, Mozilla still also has partnerships with other search providers, including Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon and eBay.

Of course, everybody declined to comment on my queries to hand over all the financial deets stat.

But Google’s SVP of Search, Alan Eustace, said in a statement: “Mozilla has been a valuable partner to Google over the years and we look forward to continuing this great partnership in the years to come.”

Great, perhaps, but also much more expensive — so presumably Firefox is worth it.

Experian Hitwise reports that “Facebook” was the most popular search term on the Web this year, accounting for an enormous 3.1 percent of all searches. Add in related queries like “facebook.com” and “www.facebook.com,” and Mark Zuckerberg’s company accounted for four of the year’s Top 10 searches.

If this surprises you, it’s because you’ve never looked at this kind of query data before. Punching the name of a Web site into a search engine — either intentionally, or by accident, because you’ve confused the URL bar with the search bar on your browser — is a time-honored Internet tradition. Many moons ago, for instance, “AOL” and its cousins used to show up at the top of these lists.

As it is, the rest of the Top 10 is filled out by big, relatively ancient Web brands. Which again might give you some clue as to what’s going on here — people probably really aren’t searching for “YouTube,” and “MySpace” and “eBay” and “Yahoo” — they just can’t figure out how to get there. That’s a distinction with a difference.

Important sidenote raised by Greg Sterling: None of Experian’s Top 10 entrants show up on the “top” lists that services like Google, Bing and AOL provide.