Anyone who uses Google Merchant centre will or should be aware of the changes which Google have introduced to improve the end user experience.  In essence this means categorising products properly, ensuring that brand names are listed as well as supplier code and ideally barcodes.

For most this has been a painful process but having gone through this with a client I can see that there are huge benefits to be had from doing this.  There is a real opportunity to get ahead of your competition if you take the time to do it.  And if you don't have time then find someone who does because if you get this right it could be a source of high converting free traffic which we all try so hard to obtain through a multitude of other approaches.

I have seen an interesting article on Econsultancy blog.  It talks about the logos that have the most resonance with consumers.  Customers recognised several of the logos, but the most well-known were: 

• McAfee (79%) 
• Verisign (76%) 
• Paypal (72%) 
• BBB (37%)
• TRUSTe (28%)

Respondents were asked which single logo gave them most reassurance, and the three most recognised ones are clear winners here: 
The results showed a chasm between the top three and the rest: 

• PayPal (29%)
• Verisign (25%)  
• McAfee (23%) 
• BBB (7%)
• TRUSTe (3%) 

The survey (of 150 mainly US respondents) which accompanied the Usabilia test also reveals much about consumer attitudes to trustmarks. 

• 76% said that trust logos did affect their sense of trust in a particular website, which 64% said unknown logos affected their level of trust. 
• 61% had not made a purchase because no trust logos were visible, while 76% hadn't because they didn't recognise the logo. 

The results therefore suggest that

• Trustmarks do matter. 
• Only a handful are instantly recognisable. 
• If your trustmarks aren't recognisable, then you may be better without them.

You can se

There is a clear usage by major brands of large dropdown menus and this article by usability guru Jakob Nielsen makes this point in his latest Alertbox post, recommending the use of such menus to improve the user experience, as well as providing some tips on making 'mega drop-downs' more user friendly. Here is an analysis of some sites which I think is very helpful.

There an interesting post from Econsultancy about the relative strengths and weaknesses of Android and it's apparent inability to monetise the app market in the same way as Apple.  Take a look.

"The success of Android in the mobile market may be one of Google's biggest accomplishments outside of search, and it may be crucial to the company's long-term success generally. But when it comes to ecosystems, Android still lags well behind Apple, which has built the mother of all ecosystems around iOS.

The question for Google: why is that?

There are a number of possible answers. Android is arguably more 'open' than iOS, and it's the OS for devices from many vendors, meaning Google exerts less control over the end-to-end user experience.

There's also the fact that Google's payment mechanism, Google Checkout, generally sucks, making the app purchasing experience less pleasurable, in turn giving developers no reason to focus their efforts away from iOS and the App Store to Android and the Android Market.

But what if there are a more fundamental issues with Android that Google can't control?

At the Gamelab 2011 conference in Barcelona, one developer chalked it up to Android's demographic: "Android has potential, but it doesn’t just have fragmentation or billing issues, it’s the demographic too." In other words, Android users are cheap.

Previous surveys have revealed significant differences between iPhone owners and their Android counterparts, so the notion that that Android fans might be from Mars and Apple fans might be from Venus isn't entirely new.

But given the penetration Android now has in the mobile market, Apple's continued lead as the ecosystem of choice should be of concern to Google.

As Michael Schade, whose company Fishlabs builds mobile games, told the audience at Gamelab 2011, "Android is missing a trick; a quality, premium section. Google does not understand that software drives hardware sales".

The trick, however, may be something that Google can't create if demographics are a key determinant in whether or not Android users will pay for software.

There's a lesson here for all businesses, of course: demographics matter. Apple doesn't need to own the majority of the mobile market to be the most efficient in extracting profit from it.

At the same time, Google can adopt a strategy that results in impressive gains in market share without necessarily tapping the market in the most effective way.

This, of course, doesn't mean that Apple is beating Google in every analysis (I don't think it's always sensible to compare Apples to Googles in mobile), but the differences between the iOS ecosystem and the Android ecosystem should serve as a powerful reminder that who you target is just as important as who you acquire."

More information as Econsultancy

It was interesting to note the growth of Android as can be seen in a recent article on Clickz.    This is welcome news because it will eventually translate into more traffic to my client's websites and with the larger format phones that will also mean more sales (for ecommerce sites).  At the moment from the analytics I am looking at, the iphone is miles ahead.

The number of U.S. smartphones running on Googles's Android operating system continued to grow in the three months ending April 2011, and outpaced the number installed with Apple's iOS platform.

According to data from comScore, 74.6 million people in the U.S. owned smartphones during that period, up 13 percent from the three-month period ending in January 2011. Android grew its market share by 5.2 percentage points in that time, reaching a total of 36.4 percent of U.S. smartphones. The number running Apple's iOS, meanwhile, grew by 1.3 percentage points, representing 26 percent of handsets.

BlackBerry manufacturer RIM saw its own share of devices decline further, dipping 4.7 percentage points to reach 25.7 percent of the market.

See more here

Along with every other SEO we are all learning about how the Google Panda roll out is affecting client sites.  Google have put together a useful checklist for website owners to consider with regard to their content.

Google lists the following as “questions that one could use to assess the ‘quality’ of a page or an article”

• Would you trust the information presented in this article?
• Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
• Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
• Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
• Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
• Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
• Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
• Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
• How much quality control is done on content?
• Does the article describe both sides of a story?
• Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
• Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
• Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
• For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
• Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
• Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
• Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
• Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
• Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
• Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
• Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
• Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
• Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

There is a lot to take in but in essence the emphasis is on quality original content which you can't really argue about.  If you sell product and your product information comes from the manufacturer site then clearly there is some work to do and new practices required moving forward.