If you’re tight for time, please help me by clicking this link one time only, just so that I know you’re really reading this blog:

Please click this link - note that there are no downloads, forms or anything nasty. It’s a simple HTML page that does nothing but exist.

The more detailed explanation:

Every now and then I come across a problem that I want to solve myself, instead of reaching for the all-knowing Google.

Today’s challenge is a simple one. Perhaps.

The blog that you are reading has a reasonable number of visitors. But because of the nature of blog reading patterns and in particular the way that RSS readers may be set up, working out exactly how many visitors is tricky.

For instance people read the content through a web browser and/or RSS reader, and I can see that some RSS readers are set to hit our feed every hour. Every hour?

I’m determined to get to the bottom of this, and quite frankly right now I don’t know if we get hundreds or thousands of people reading the blog a day.

So if you can, please help me with my first round of testing by clicking on the link below one time only, just so that I know you are a real person reading this. The page exists purely to see how many people view it.

Thank-you – please click me.

Facebook’s liberal interpretation of the very concept of privacy is sending ripples far beyond the confines of the ultra-paranoid.

The New York Times recently wrote an article on the Price of Facebook Privacy, and pointed out that while the United States Constitution contains only 4,543 words, Facebook’s Privacy Policy contain 5,830.

With more than 400 million registered users, Facebook have apparently decided that they can amend their terms as they see fit, with recent changes including requiring their users to actively opt out if they wish their information to remain private. By default, most information is public, and some personal data has already been shared with other websites.

Worse still is the fact that (according to the article) Facebook users who wish to keep their personal information private have to click more than 50 privacy buttons, which then require choosing among a total of over 170 options.

Privacy fears are nothing new, and big corporations like Google are already supporting the aluminium foil industry through the ever-paranoid ‘enlightened few’. But this issue appears to be a growing concern for more stable users too. And a news item on search engine land shows a huge spike of traffic to a guide on how to delete your Facebook account.

Who would have thought that you’d need a guide?

Facebook appear to be hovering dangerously close to a very clear line. The fact that the issue is now public means that they can no longer afford to sit on the fence and make token amendments to their policy and systems.

In much the same way that an avalanche can be triggered by the movement of a few snowflakes, Facebook’s demise could become very real very quickly.

It’s time to listen to their users and respond accordingly.

Image source: The New York Times

The main advantage to my being stranded by volcanic ash – Around the World in 14 Days – was the fact that I came home with an iPad.

When I first heard about the device I dismissed it as a gimmick. As a PC user with a BlackBerry in my pocket, I always felt that the iPhone was little more than a well designed toy, and the iPad was simply a bigger version, without the ability to make phone calls.

I was right about the iPhone, but wrong about the iPad. The iPad isn’t a bigger iPhone. The iPhone is simply a smaller iPad.

I don’t believe that the iPad will revolutionise how we interact with the web and our data. But I do believe that it’s the biggest evolutionary step in the history of the PC since the invention of the mouse.

As usual, Google have spotted the opportunity. And as usual they have silently added the ability to directly target iPad users from within the AdWords system.

Yet before setting up your first iPad campaign, you might want to consider how the device works.

For instance without installing a means of synchronising my bookmarks, I can click an ad on my iPad, but won’t be able to store the URL on my desktop. But a special offer combined with the ability to send it by email might work well.

And a little ingenuity might even work out a means of re-establishing the link between my iPad and desktop PC so that you can track whether or not I purchase.

Opportunities are there for the taking, but only for the wise.

For those of you who have been following my exploits, after being stranded in Shanghai by volcanic ash, I’m now home.

The incredible fact is that within 14 days I flew the whole way round the world. From London to Shanghai, Shanghai to Chicago, Chicago to Newark and finally Newark to London.

To describe the experience as taxing on the body and mind is an understatement.

But I’m back now.

Complete with an iPad!

Last week I attended and spoke at the Chinese Software Global Summit in Shanghai.

Thanks to the oddity of a volcanic erruption in Iceland, my flight back to the UK was cancelled on Saturday, leaving me stranded in Shanghai for at least a few weeks.

I’m now working from Chicago in the US, as it has to be easier to fly back from here than China. And with a flight booked for Sunday, my fingers are tightly crossed that I get home soon.

China was an incredible experience, and I’ll be writing more of that in the coming weeks. But my situation meant (and still means) that I am more appreciative of technology than ever before.

Thanks to modern software, hardware and infastructure I have been able to see and speak with family and friends, access my email, documents and systems and work more or less as normal.

Yet I can’t help but be struck that in this age of incredible technological advancement, most of a continent has been more or less paralysed by a smoking volcano. Technology can only get us so far.

PS: My apologies if this post is less than smooth. I’ve been averaging 4.5 hours of sleep a night for the last week. Apparently I don’t handle jet lag well!

The BBC are reporting that Apple has been showing off some of the 100 new features to be included in the iPhone operating system later this year:

“The update includes a mobile advertising platform called iAd that will be used to place adverts in applications made by third parties.”

Interesting. Adware was so unpopular that a whole mini industry developed to fight it, and in fact is still thriving today.

So why re-introduce the square wheel?

“Apple founder Steve Jobs also showcased a long-awaited multi-tasking feature, which will allow users run more than one program at a time.”

And this is innovation?

Prediction: the iWorshippers will love it anyway.

Apple reveals new iPhone features

I had a phone call yesterday from a free business magazine that I receive in the mail each month. They wanted to know if I was happy with my subscription (?) and whether I wanted any additional copies for our office.

When I told her that we’re only a small company, she offered to send me five more copies each month at no additional cost. I explained that we don’t need five more copies, so she suggested sending ten each month, so that I can also leave copies out in our waiting room.

With my patience wearing out fast, I explained that we’re an online marketing company and have no waiting room. I was about to thank her for her time, but just had time to hear “…so let’s leave it at five additional copies then…” before doing what I should have done two minutes earlier and hanging up on her.

The only reason that I can think of for a magazine to do this is to increase their distribution figures, making the numbers look more appealing for advertisers.

It strikes me as not only a morally questionable strategy, but also a short-sighted one. Even assuming they double their circulation in this way, I suspect their advertisers would see no significant difference.

The magazine in question also has a truly horrible website. It’s almost impossible to navigate, difficult to read, uses an eye-watering colour scheme and has a staggering 11 animated ads on the front page alone.

The content of the magazine itself is actually quite good. So they already have an advantage over many of their rivals.

This magazine needs to invest in their website. The old media is dying, and unless they catch up with the ‘internet thing‘, I very much doubt they’ll be around in a couple of years. No matter how much they increase their readership.

PS: If I receive five additional copies next month I will name the publication with relish!

Remember when 468 x 80 banners were the big thing?

I do. In fact I used to sell advertising on some of our websites using the format, as did most websites at that time.

Then we hit ICO - Inevitable Cycle of Overuse.

Stage 1 – the format takes off; now “everybody” is using it.

Stage 2 – we see so many banners that our brains start to automatically filter them out and ignore them.

Stage 3 – the “clever” people realise they need to make their banners stand out. They start using bright, garish colours to irritate your senses.

Stage 4 - the “clever” people realise they need to make their banners stand out from the other bright, garish banners. They start using irritating animations that distract you from what you’re doing.

Stage 5 – the “clever” people realise they need to make their banners really stand out from the other bright garish animated banners. They start using horrible sounds that hurt your head.

Stage 6 – our brains have to work too hard to filter out and ignore the audio-visual debris that bombards them. The “fed up” people buy software that blocks banners.

Stage 7 – free add-ons for web browsers that stop the ads working.

Incredibly, the 468 x 80 banner is still in use. To me this is like using waterboarding for brainstorming. But thanks to phenomenal over-use of the 468 x 80 format, it’s nowhere near as effective (or expensive) as it used to be.

Today I see a new breed of 468 x 80: the slider ads, such as AnythingSlider.

These are just as annoying a format as 468 x 80 ever was. Yet this format has a twist. People are using it as a substitute for poor web design.

Instead of using a well-designed navigation structure, some web designers have decided that it’s more effective to throw their products and services at visitors (at speed) the moment they arrive.

We’re approaching Stage 2 of the ICO syndrome, but it won’t be long before we start ignoring them, and you know what happens next.

Advertising in 2010 shouldn’t be about interrupting, annoying or distracting your potential customers. And if your irritating ads take up large amounts of your web pages, what do you think the initial impression of your website will be?

Break the cycle. Inform your visitors; don’t interrupt, bombard or torture them.

The UK’s Times and Sunday Times newspapers have announced that they will start charging to access their websites in June.

Readers will be charged £1 (US $1.50) for a day’s access or £2 ($3) for a week’s subscription.

This immediately reminded me of Spotify. As an occasional Spotify user, I really like the access it provides me to literally millions of tracks. However as a free user I am occasionally irritated by their ads.

So I decided to upgrade to the ad-free Premium version. Or at least I was intending to, until realising that doing so would cost me £9.99 ($15) per month.

Here’s an idea.

I understand that newspapers and online music services need to start making money.

Yet as happy as I am to pay for my music, I can’t even consider paying £120 a year for it. Especially when all my downloaded tracks and albums will cease to function once my membership is cancelled.

Here’s where I get to the idea.

If Spotify were to make it a real no-brainer, I’d go for it. And so would a lot of other people.

If Spotify offer me a premium account for £3 a month, I’d sign up today. If they offer me the same deal for £2 a month, I wouldn’t even have to think about cancelling my subscription.

Last year Spotify revealed that “less than 10%” of their subscribers had upgraded. Meaning 5%? 3%? 1%?

I guarantee that figure would explode if they were to adopt a more reasonable pricing structure, and their income would increase massively.

If News International were to charge £2 or even £1 a month for access, how many of their regular readers would even blink?

The question is whether News International and Spotify are going to adapt and survive or ignore and perish.

Yes, yes, we know. Google China users are being automatically redirected to Google Hong Kong.

But more importantly, why is the Google Hong Kong homepage so much funkier than everywhere else:

Google.com:

Google.com.hk:

When are we going to be upgraded?