Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
With the rise of social media, it's no surprise that online reputation monitoring has been a growth market. Knowing what consumers and customers are saying about you on the internet is extremely important.
Generally, sites like Twitter and Facebook get the most attention when it comes to reputation monitoring but there's another site that may be even more important for brands to keep an eye on: Wikipedia.
Can search be crowdsourced? It's a question that Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, set out to answer when his for-profit company Wikia launched Wikia Search.
Wikia Search, which we reviewed here on the Econsultancy blog when it launched, tried to give users the ability to edit search results in much the same fashion that users can edit pages on Wikipedia.
Ian Grant is the MD of Britannica UK, responsible for the EMEA regions. I've been talking to Ian about how EB has adapted to the internet, the threat from Wikipedia, and its plans for the future...
If you have a question that you just can't seem to find the answer to (or are too busy or lazy to do research), the internet has plenty of websites that make it easy to enlist the help of others to answer it.
From established players to Yahoo! Answers to Answers.com to young hopefuls like Mahalo Answers, it's safe to say that the Q&A space is not exactly underserved.
Last week, we reported on Encyclopaedia Britannica's pending changes to Britannica.com that would enable users to contribute content to the Britannica's online entries.
The move was clearly designed to take a page out of the book of the user-generated online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which has come to dominate the online market.
Online collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia has a massive 97% share of internet visits among the top five reference websites, highlighting the amount of work that rivals like Britannica.com have to catch up.
Britannica.com announced some new Wikipedia-style community features last week as it attempts to make up some of the ground lost to Wikipedia. According to stats from Hitwise, it currently has just 0.57% of US internet visits to the encyclopedia category.
With Encyclopedia Britannica gearing up to launch a new version of Britannica.com that will incorporate more community features, I decided it was a good time to take a look at Britannica.com.
Is it in a good position to compete with Wikipedia, the user-generated online 'encyclopedia' that eclipses Britannica.com in popularity, or will it have to do more? Here are 5 criticisms of Britannica.com that I believe it needs to address to be successful.
When it comes to online 'encyclopedias', chances are that Wikipedia springs to mind faster than the 241 year-old Encyclopedia Britannica.
Despite the virtues of an encyclopedia that is 100% edited by humans, Britannica's influence has waned in today's Wikipedia world.
Google announced last week that it had recently reached the milestone of 100,000 articles published on Knol, the company's answer to Wikipedia.
Knol was launched in July last year, and attracting so many contributors in such a short space of time is no mean feat, but it is flawed so far, and there are plenty of issues to be resolved on the site before it can begin to worry Jimmy Wales.