HEATMAPS :: Heatmaps can be the end result of  both eye-tracking and clicks.
representing existing data in another format
value of heatmaps as a communication tool to board level executives ? Everything’s OK until they ask ‘why do you think people are not clicking here’
are quite useful if your site is popular enough
can be used for testing your design

What does a heatmap tell ?
which links are clicked most (how is that useful ?)
Find out which design encourages visitors to click deeper

What the heatmap doesnt tell ?
Did the visitor clicked a link because he wanted to OR was it just plain good looking
Are they able to see the link that I want them to
Should a section of the website be removed because users dont use it or they dont see it
What do you do to improve the page
Any application for how to interpret the data
“Do you have some blue text on a page that people are mistaking for a link?
Do you have links in a small font size, which people are missing when they try to click?
Do you have an unlinked logo or other graphical device that people think they can click on ?”

If we ask the user to perform a task and then put a heatmap, we can get an individual heatmap

Q: What fun-thing can be made out of a click heatmap ?
A:     Something with false clicks
An image with pseudo-links
selecting text
give them a choice of clicking 30 links

Ubiqutous : Eye tracking
doesnt tell how long the visitor saw a link

Non-ubi    : Click tracking

SOLUTION ::     we have to correlate their clicks, comments, and actions
1. Get some people to use the site with heatmap
2. Gather data and see which gets the maximum clicks/views
3. Get a second set of people and have a qualitative testing session
4. The heatmap will help formaulate the right questions for the test

Direct user observation can lead to more clear-cut insights as to why things are happening on your site

At the very core of any effort towards optimizing online marketing is quality content. But good content is not enough unless you can deliver this content quickly, easily and in the right amounts at the right time. Enter the Web Content Management System (CMS); online marketing’s most potent but most underplayed weapon. Any organization serious about getting the most out of its Web site will value a Web CMS solution because:

• Creating and managing online content is a marketing-related function, not an IT-related one. The focus is therefore on an easy-to-use interface that allows marketing professionals with only a rudimentary knowledge of the system to manage Web content. • Every Web site needs constant monitoring and updating of content to attract consumers and have them return. A manual process is clearly not the best way to do this. • The increased ease and speed of publishing content through a CMS allows for companies to be properly tuned to new challenges and expectations for their site, and respond in a timely manner. • Standardized processes that can easily be tracked give companies greater control over the content generated, with quality checks at all appropriate points. A Web CMS system thus offers several opportunities for maximizing a company’s return on marketing investment. The good news is that leading CMS software solutions providers have realized the shift in focus from mere administration to marketing potential: they now prime their solutions to directly impact revenue generation. With the right Web CMS, companies can now create accurately coordinated, multi-pronged marketing campaigns that can easily be tracked, modified, and quantified for analysis.

Let’s look at some of the advantages of Web CMS in detail: Content Consistency For potential customers to be attracted to a Web site, navigate their way through it and finally commit to a transaction, a key requirement is that they consistently receive information that appeals to them without difficulty. It is therefore important for any organization to coordinate content production at every level: the primary site, marketing emails, newsletters, landing pages and microsites. Single-sourcing is a critical enabler of marketing efforts, as the resultant content consistency ensures good brand management and greater user relevancy.

Search Engine optimization (SEO) Central to any e-marketing effort, search engine optimization (SEO) involves techniques and innovations to ensure that a company’s Web site is consistently top-ranked. In considering SEO, one must look at two different kinds of advertising that take place:

• Organic or natural search • Paid search

Although most companies tend to focus on the latter, the benefits of organic search should not be neglected. It is here that a strong marketing-centric CMS can help; not only by providing consistent, updated content with efficient metadata but also by facilitating keyword analysis and development. With paid search too, a CMS can help reduce pay-per-click rates by optimizing the Web site’s quality score. The quality score is factored on many aspects such as click-through-rate and content relevancy, all of which decide how much an organization pays for search services.

Usability Experience Web 2.0 consumers are not merely looking for information; they seek a user experience. Integral to this experience is accessibility. Consumers must be able to access content in dynamic ways, without being restricted by weak taxonomy support or hierarchical information organizations. Social bookmarking now allows consumers to classify, organize and share content based on hierarchies that best appeal to them. Then there is the question of community-generated content, both primary (articles or blog posts) and metadata (comments, voting, ratings, and more).

A good CMS infinitely simplifies this process by allowing public participation in the publishing workflow. It provides the necessary tools to share content , monitor, acknowledge, verify and incorporate feedback into the system, thus promoting greater interactivity. Web publishers should also remember that users can now access content from various Web-enabled devices: the CMS must therefore maintain a level of separation between content and presentation systems.

Web Analytics Responding to dynamic online marketing challenges is nearly impossible without timely and easy access to tools that track, measure, analyze and report user behavior and campaign effectiveness. While analytics has traditionally remained a separate domain from content management, companies are increasingly realizing advantages in leveraging relationships between the two. When fully integrated with a Web CMS, analytics solutions offer the advantages of consistent KPIs (key performance indicators), higher level traffic data analysis, scenario analyses and campaign tracking; all within the interface of the CMS itself. Thus, an integrated analytics and CMS solution offers non-technical, subject matter experts easily understandable, comprehensive tracking tools that can then be leveraged for better marketing returns.

The Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Advantage Many factors have prevented small and mid-size organizations from benefiting from either installed software or open source CMS; primary issues being cost and implementation effort. With Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) or hosted CMS solutions, companies now receive all the advantages of enterprise-class CMS solutions without any of the hassles of installed or open source solutions.

The primary advantage is that SaaS removes the need for purchasing expensive software. SaaS also spares resource-starved companies the need for more hardware or personnel investments required for implementation, maintenance and upgrade of the CMS. And finally, SaaS models ensure constant vendor support, as the responsibility for maintaining the solution remains with the service provider.

The Bottom Line The old days of top-down information delivery are gone. The mantra of the Web 2.0 world is fluidity and responsiveness. Treating content management as just regular delivery of static pages of information is a sure way to get left behind. Content management must be an ongoing process vital to organizational functioning, and the best way to streamline it is through a good CMS.

For more information: http://www.crownpeak.com

Google has finally integrated adsense and google analytics and have launched it officially. Though it was already available for majority of adsense publishers, google had not offered analytics integration with adsense to everyone.
If you have not used google analytics with adsense, this the perfect time to do it. I had written a tutorial on this on how to integrate analytics with adsense, you can read it here. Tracking adsense clicks will help you understanding your users better and to optimize adsense ads too.

http://phpdesktop.blogspot.com/

]]> http://priceburner.com/web-analytics-software/158/analytics/business-analytics-for-insurance-claims-lower-costs-improve-service/feed/ 0 http://priceburner.com/web-analytics-software/181/analytics/content-still-king-as-search-market-consolidates/ http://priceburner.com/web-analytics-software/181/analytics/content-still-king-as-search-market-consolidates/#comments Sun, 23 May 2010 10:15:31 +0000 Nick Kurentz http://priceburner.com/web-analytics-software/181/analytics/content-still-king-as-search-market-consolidates/

Ultriva, the lean leader, with an electronic kanban focus went live in thirty-six plants last year and is on target to double in 2009.  Narayan Laksham, Founder and CEO said, “Align inventory levels with actual consumption offers a collaborative, easy-to-use lean execution platform for consumption-driven replenishment. Working with your ERP/MRP applications to support material flow across the supply chain, the Electronic Kanban for Global Supply Chain automatically signals a supplier to produce and deliver a new shipment whenever a Kanban card or “lot” of material is consumed. Every Kanban card is tracked throughout the replenishment cycle, even across borders and languages, bringing unprecedented visibility to both buyers and suppliers.”

This system enables users to:

Eliminate stock outs

Always have the right material at the right place at the right time

Ensure smooth material flow across the supply chain by complimenting and extending your ERP/MRP system functionalities.

Complementing the revenue success Ultriva also announced various products to help customers accomplish their goals. Some of the key modules that were released were:

-          Lean Assessment Tool – A patent pending analytical SaaS (software-as-a-service) tool that simulates historical MRP data and superimposes Kanban replenishment to identify ideal Kanban parts and potential inventory savings.

-          Production Sequencing – An Add-on feature to the Internal Kanban module for managing cell level production

-          Call-off Replenishment – A module that enables engineered to order products to  get raw materials (with long lead times) just-in-time

-          Lean Scheduling – A SaaS tool that allows final assembly cells to front load, back fill or level load production based on the customer want date instead of just capacity

Laksham noted that “The supply chain is still largely controlled by MRP/ERP systems which use forecasted or planned demand to set up supplier replenishments. Every run generates changes to the existing demand while also creating new demands which results in inconsistencies across the supply chain, late shipments, costly expediting, and stock outs. As manufacturing spreads horizontally, the global supply chain is becoming the most critical factor in determining customer demands. Managing this chain is no longer a matter of reducing costs but of optimizing a key process that is fueled by integration, trust, common metrics, and aligned goals. Ultriva addresses all of the above with a software solution that supports different forms of replenishment like Kanban, MRP orders, VMI, and 3PL and integrates seamlessly with your existing systems.”

Ultriva Lean Supply solutions, such as the Supplier Portal for Purchase Order Execution offer a platform to improve collaboration between plants and suppliers so they can interact and perform in synergy to deliver the right parts at the right time. They provide seamless integration between manufacturing plants and supply bases through order visibility, exception alerts, inventory health, performance metrics, and analytics for continuous improvement. Our solutions support your choice of methodologies and processes within a single platform, from Kanban-based replenishment with Electronic Kanban for Global Supply Chain to MRP/forecast-driven supply, to VMI, and more.

Over 3000 suppliers are participating across 95 plants in 9 countries using Ultriva Lean Supply. Our customers report important benefits:

Improved on-time delivery by 20%

Shortened lead times by 25% or more

Reduced inventory levels more than 40%

Reduced expediting fees by 50% Ultriva is live at over 120 plants across 10 countries.  Companies like Emerson, BE Aerospace, Trane, Ingersoll-Rand, McKesson, AO Smith, FRANKE and AGCO among others are using Ultriva to collaborate with over 4000 suppliers and transacting $1.5 billion of purchased parts every year.

Ultriva

www.ultriva.com

Cindy McGowan

pr@ultriva.com

408.248.9803

Somewhat Accepted:

• Hegarty p. 170: “Sons et lumières goes on to gloss over the longstanding incompatibility of sound with the gallery /museum setting. Sound in the gallery is noise—not only inappropriate until recent times, but it spread beyond its location, or demands more of a sense of location than a painting, say, requires. Sound-based art in a show can be overbearing, and , if there are several pieces, they risk clashing. Contemplation of any given piece is disrupted, and in turn the sound piece becomes an ambience rather than a discrete work. To get around this, space can be allocated away from other words—a sort of quarantine. Alternatively, the piece can be totally isolated and accessed through headphones.”

I have been fascinated by the comparison of the visual and sonic arts as discrete mediums, especially differences in the process of perception and cognition in each. The boundaries created by a capitalist notion of property afford a sense of ownership over the content members of society choose to consume in both private and public spaces. I first pondered this issue soon after taking my first trip on Chicago’s L where I read the warning of regulations levied against playing music/sound on electronic playback devices at an amplitude audible to other passengers on the train. Interestingly, L stations stand as great confluences for street musicians, relegating public sound production from the train cars’ interiors to the trackside boarding hubs.

Therefore, depending on the medium chosen for entertainment during the mundane commute along the tracks, attempting to avoid boredom in our constantly seeking stimulation mentality (as many are not satisfied with the observational variation already inherent in the unfolding of events in a “routine” day), one’s choice of perception is regulated by the imposed sense of consideration for others. If one chooses to satisfy a penchant for visual stimulation by reading a magazine, peering at the glossy, airbrushed, and plastic-infused faces of celebrities trying to stave off an inevitable death, the entertainment in neatly partitioned (barring a Pee-wee Herman-esque public exposure) within the shared space of the L car by immediate proximity and viewing angles.

Unfortunately, I develop a severe adverse reaction to the gyroscopic motion compensation of my eyes when focused on any object demanding precise and constant visual tracking, especially a page of text near my face. The turbulence of the car causes one’s body to vibrate and undulate in relation to the object one grasps so tightly, already compensating in terms of preventing movement of the object within one’s hands. Despite intense focus, information seeps in from one’s peripheral vision, creating a type of visual noise to the desired “signal.” (Side note: An interesting experiment in visual noise could entail the exploration of microvisuals instead of microsound; creating a visual artwork of a sufficiently miniscule scale and surrounding the artwork with “undesirable” visual stimuli would ensure the consumption of the work within a collage-like context; the border inherent in our visual field, barring a microscope/camera/binoculars/etc., surpasses the physical boundaries of such a work).  The juxtaposition of visual data in constant motion with the fixed appearance of an oscillating object therefore spawns a form a visual dissonance, only not the pleasurable kind for me.

As in nearly every other setting, I therefore choose to occupy this time listening to music in a portable media device. This choice, in the context of the L’s noise abatement regulation, forces one to hermetically seal the sound into one’s cochleae, arguably accelerating sensorineural hearing loss. I will be the first person to oppose someone blasting hip-hop, or any other form of music I find objectionable, in the train car, but I simply use the example as support in the variance between perceptions of different artistic media. It is also interesting that the sustained sound level produced by street performers is accepted on L platforms in an atmosphere of constantly harmful sound pressure levels.

Regarding the quarantine dilemma of sound art in a shared gallery space, I believe this necessary constraint filters the artwork being produced by sound artists for exhibition purposes. This and other constraints, such as the transportability mentioned by Hegarty, create artistic limitations based on the location of consumption. An artwork utilizing the spatiality of a given gallery as integral to its content would not function through headphones, and therefore must necessitate a minimum level of clout from the artist in securing exhibition space: one must be able to earn a partitioned section of the gallery space or a solo exhibition in isolation. Some part of me wonders if certain sound artists do not find this fact to be a problem: if such an artist willingly accepts the aleatoric sound production of an audience within the space, all sounds beyond the artist’s control might be welcomed.

• Hegarty p. 51: “While I do not think genre, style, category can be suspended except very fleetingly, the attempt is still worthwhile, and if the attempt is all we an have, then the attempt is the highest form of freedom to be aspired to, and must be maintained as an aim.”

Though Hegarty made this assertion in regards to free improvisation outside stylistic genres, it is especially relevant to the practice of noise music in general. I mentioned the asymptotic nature of noise in a previous blog: the ideal noise music would have an infinite amount of disruptions to content, followed by disruptions to those disruptions, etc. It also holds valid in terms of noise music’s genre formation, since Duchampian taste development constantly diminishes the “noisiness” of said music. Therefore, the “noisiest” music stands as an ideal mirroring the non-suspension of style/genre, leaving artists with the aspiration of attempts not living up to the aesthetic ideal.

At the same time, from an aesthetic point of view, the inability of attaining “perfection” is discouraging in terms of one’s desires: if the goal cannot be reached, why the continual effort aimed toward the goal? The problem lies in the conceptual ideal and theorists’ dissection of the aesthetic, however, because nearly every pursuit may be vivisected and deconstructed in a similar manner. Maintaining the goal in the first place can be seen as a fault if one knows the goal to be a fallacy before exerting efforts toward that goal. Therefore, one should repudiate these delusions of grandiose aesthetic perfection, acknowledging the absence of the pure ideal in one’s music.

• Hegarty p. 171: “The key in any case, is the installation, of which Labelle has the following to say: ‘the developments of sound installation provide a heightened articulation of sound to perform as an artistic medium, making explicit “sound art” as a unique and identifiable practice.”
  • Hegarty p. 170: “…the sound installations that begin to appear in the late 1960s allow, or suggest ways in which sound was used to construct art, or was made as art rather than as music.”

The distinction of sound art as separate from music has intrigued me since I learned of the artistic medium. I believe the dividing line lies in the perceptual reference frame, making the distinction semantic in my opinion. In response to the second quote, I ask: “What about art music?” I’m sure that Hegarty did not mean to assert that music isn’t already a form of art, but this quote somewhat implies this stance: he should have avoided obfuscation in stating, “…made as art alone rather than as music.” It really depends on the contextual frame of the artwork: an experimental composer might frame the exact sonic morphology of an audio signal used by a sound artist as a composed piece of music rather than a piece of sound art; therefore, the socialized context imposes the distinction in manner of perception.

Labelle contends that the installation is essential to the creation of sound art’s frame of perception and its aesthetic expectations, providing a “heightened articulation of sound to perform as an artistic medium, making explicit ‘sound art’ as a unique and identifiable practice.” I do not believe that an installation articulates sound to perform as an artistic medium any more than a conventional musical performance, namely the concert. While an assuredly different tome of codes governs the digestion of sound art, it is naïve to assert an installation’s relative superiority in framing sonic content as art. If anything, the traditional conception of music carries a far heavier load of historical baggage in connoting a “work of art,” as the creative genius of Common Practice composers has been enshrined and accepted long before Futurist/Dada/Fluxus predecessors to sound art.

It therefore seems that the durability or consistency of an installation creates the “aura” of sound art in contrast to a musical performance. Temporality perhaps stands as the crux in distinguishing sound art from music (the continual exhibition versus the finite concert event), but even these boundaries are completely blurred by the fixed operating hours of exhibition spaces and certain perpetual compositions produced by experimental composers. The absence of “performers” seems crucial to the distinction in this respect: the presence of a human producing the artwork in real-time creates a sense of social obligation for many members of the audience: one must be quiet to respect the performer, one must not cross certain personal boundaries in one’s examination of the artwork, one might feel the stigma of being rude if choosing to leave the space prematurely, etc. The unsuspecting viewer wandering into the gallery space, ignorant of sound art as a genre, would be more likely to classify an artwork involving human components in real-time as a musical performance rather than as a piece of sound art, supporting socialized cultural norms in the audience’s perception. If one accepts the notion of installation being essential to the formation of sound art, what about sound art in the form of a CD? If both an album and assemblage of sound art pieces can reside on a CD, the conceptual frame of interpretation stands as the differentiating factor.

The ambiguous line is also acknowledged by Hegarty when he states, “This line is not even noisy, as so many artists do both, or do the same thing but get defined in two different ways according to the institutional location” (Hegarty p. 177).

Rejected:

• Audio Culture p. 4 – Masami Akita: “There is no difference between noise and music in my work. I have no idea what you term ‘music’ and ‘noise.’ It’s different depending on each person. If noise means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me.”

Although I did not respond to this quote personally, I was able to read Ben’s initial response to Merzbow’s quote featured in one of the few gray pages in Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. As Ben noted, the “different depending on each person” point stands as a valid, yet extremely obvious observation, but I must contend that from my interpretation of Akita, he is a flagrant semantic hypocrite. He first acknowledges that there is “no difference between noise and music in my work,” supported by his relatively interchangeable use of the terms “music” (“If music was sex, Merzbow would be pornography.” AC p. 60) and “noise” (“Sometimes, I would like to kill the much too noisy Japanese by my own Noise.” AC p. 61) in describing his sonic work. Yet quotes such as, “So, for me Noise is the most erotic form of sound,” (AC p. 60) create a distinction between noise and other forms of sound as “most erotic” implies a discrete judgment valuation in relation to the collection of examples categorized as sound.

It is at this point that I must ask a few questions: He may not make the distinction within his work, but does he make a distinction in his taxonomization in general? When he says it is different depending on each person, does the following sentence elucidate his stance? If there is NO difference between the two forms of sound, why does he choose one semantic signifier over the other based on context?

The quote in which he expresses the desire to, “kill the much too noisy Japanese by my own Noise,” is the reason I label him a semantic hypocrite. This desire for genocide stems from Akita’s judgment that the Japanese create too much noise (although this is sort of a self-hating assertion since he is Japanese, part of the Japanese Noise scene of noise producers in general), warranting a forcible cessation in retaliation to an excess of noise: wouldn’t Akita embrace this from his aesthetic perspective? The malicious way in which he exclaims this impulse implies an air of vengeance, revealing his adverse reaction to the noise excess of Japan. When he says “my own Noise” he is simply using the term interchangeably according to the initial quote I cited, but being able to “kill the much too noisy Japanese” with his “Noise” indicates the ability of his sound to severely harm or threaten. Expressing this characteristic of his Noise is a value judgment conveying the abrasive/threatening/harmful/discomforting quality of the sound, aligning with a particular, and common definition of noise in general (notice he did not say, “kill with my music,” and is therefore selective in his employment of terms).

I leave the possibility of misinterpretation open however as Akita seems to be extremely well informed in general. It is quite probable that he chameleons his definition of noise based on those perceiving it rather than as his projected meaning: he says “kill the much too noisy Japanese by my own Noise,” meaning that they perceive the sound as noise, and it would therefore be only harmful to those perceiving it as a threat. In any case, I think he should be less vague in general, as Ben also noted, but that might diminish his edgy façade.

• Hegarty p. 172: “Cage’s 4’33” is a time and space for sounds to occur in, a space, as Labelle rightly notes, for bodies to make noises, for ears to hear beyond the confines of the pianist in front of them…By all accounts on its first performance people got restless, some left, and it was not met with rapturous applause afterward, but there can be no failure, because whatever happens, listening has occurred. The most likely unwitting purpose seems to be to discipline those bodies into correctly listening bodies, static, tensed, if excited in anticipation, about someone or something else intruding. This is no dismantling of music but a heightening of its conventions’ hierarchies.”

First, aligning with Ben, I am quite sick of discussing 4’33” despite its continual relevance and profound influence on the aesthetic perspective of many sound artists/composers covered in this course (Also, I realize that I’m exacerbating this sentiment by blogging about it as well). The end of this quote piqued my curiosity by asking the following question: Is 4’33” more accurately described as a piece of sound art rather than as a piece of music? This goes back to the institutional categorization, venue, firmly bracketed duration, and other factors distinguishing sound art from music, but the piece illustrates just how ambiguous the distinction can be.

However, the concert hall firmly claims the categorical rights over the composition by inducing Hegarty’s idea of the “correct” active listening body, namely the listener obeying all traditional concert conventions, but does not the sound art installation create the same type of conditions within a listener also operating within the normative conventions?  The socialized accepted behavior of each medium differs by relative experiential exposure, since the majority has attended more concerts than sound art installations: the holy aura of the art music concert is far more ingrained within the mind of the average consumer of artistic production. I contend that the difference in form of attention relies on the seating aspect of the concert versus the open gallery space of a sound art installation: the knowledge of social forces at a concert will force most courteous audience members to remain seated for the entire performance (or possibly slipping out at intermission), but if the sound art installation is placed in an open gallery, one reserves the right to continue walking to other exhibits without eye daggers piercing flesh.

The major reason why I selected this quote has to do with Hegarty’s assertion that 4’33” cannot fail because listening always occurs in its performance. I believe the point of the piece lies in the unconscious, aleatoric sounds produced by unwitting members of the audience, framed as a musical composition by the abstraction of conventions and the time bracket. Due to the widespread diffusion of the piece and its aesthetic values, a successful performance could only occur with an audience versed in Western art music concert etiquette ignorant of the composition and Cage’s theoretical stances. If any members of the audience are cognizant of the piece’s point, true non-intention will not occur even though heightened listening is still generated. Since the piece focuses one’s attention on the aleatoric sounds produced unconsciously during the focused listening directed toward the performer, informed audience members (if making even the slightest granule of sound) would disrupt the conceptual content integral to Cage’s aims.

• Hegarty p. 89: “The mainstream rock of the 1970s, whether progressive rock (now seen as regressive) or heavy rock, seemed to be predicated on an unbreakable elitism, based on virtuosity. Essential to crossing the divide between passive worship and making music, or being close to and involved in the music, was the idea that creativity was not determined by skill. Skill would in fact be a hindrance. Many punk bands mad a virtue of an actual lack of skill.”

I have been waiting to rant about this virtue in the lack of skill for a long time. I believe musical groups and solo artists attempting to categorize their actions as “anti-virtuosic” is a completely hypocritical endeavor. It is valid to label such activities, for example No Wave, as redefining the concept of virtuosity because it does not take a lack of skill to create the complex sonic structure or techniques, just a different kind of virtuosity/skill. According to Derek Bailey’s recollection of Joseph Holbrooke, he had to develop and practice the “skill” of avoiding muscle memory patterns ingrained in his tissue, exploring difficult techniques (difficult to him at the time since he had to practice) in an unfamiliar territory to strip away musical conventions. One could most certainly label his actions as virtuosic is the framework of (non)style, and similarly, the raw, “incorrect” singing style of punk singers has been perfected in the eyes of the fans: a typical fan would most likely reject a singing style with an equal “lack of skill,” but in a completely different inept ballpark.

Though it might offend some readers, I have absolutely zero tolerance for embracing the “lack of skill” because I am able to redefine my idea of skill based on the characteristics of data currently being absorbed. If one cannot reevaluate performing techniques, only accepting conservatory practices for example, one needs to attempt these techniques and realize the skill required to achieve the exact sonic results: just because one dismisses a technique as banging on the guitar does not mean that the technique is not actually governed by delicately infinitesimal hand movements practiced for countless hours. I have no interest in digesting music trying to be unskilled because every unskill may also be a skill.

The Present Future?

I believe the future of noise, already occurring in the present day, will be similar to Matmos’s direction, incorporating bodily sounds beyond traditional vocalizations. As technology fuses with organic material (For example: Protein-Coated Disc (PCD) is a theoretical optical disc technology currently being developed by Professor Venkatesan Renugopalakrishnan, formerly of Harvard Medical School and Florida International University. PCD would greatly increase storage over Holographic Versatile Disc optical disc systems. It involves coating a normal DVD with a special light-sensitive protein made from a genetically altered microbe, which would in principle allow storage of up to 50 Terabytes on one disc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-coated_disc) and organic fuses with technology, such as a increasing reliance on mechanical/digital devices, the conception of the body will progress further toward an advanced machine consisting of organic tissue (i.e. an android of sorts). Incorporating the sounds of this machine, as technology and its sound byproducts are often integral to noise production/isolation, will most certainly develop into a stylistic trend beyond the relatively unique example of Matmos. If noise is defined as that which is a threat, and if one defines threat as that which risks harm inflicted on either mental or physical boundaries, the next logical step will be a focus on these walls/boundaries, such as actual cell wall miking. Of course, this is just one of many possibilities.

Step 1 # 1: Making an Account

Analytics software system is a free tool provided by Google. Making an account is convenient and simple. All you need to make a Analytics engine account is a Gmail e-mail id. Once your Gmail e-mail id is set up, you can go to the Analytics engine website and sign up your website for Google Analytics.

Step # 2: Installing the Tracking Code

Once you have signed into Analytics engine, you will be redirected to a page which has links to the analytics reports of your website. If you have not installed the tracking code on your websites, click on the Add Website Profile link.

If this is your first time on Analytics engine, and you have not installed the tracking code on your website or any of its pages, choose the “Add a profile for a new domain” option. Once that is done, scroll down and type in the URL of the home page that you wish to install the tracker to.

Select the time zone you are in and click Continue. Once this is done, the Analytics engine will automatically detect whether the tracking code has been installed on the website or page that you provided them with. Choose any of the code given below (best way is to press Ctrl+A and Ctrl+C) and paste the copied code into the website and webpage that you would want Analytics engine to analyze.

Make sure that you install the code anywhere before the End Body (/body) tag. Click Continue. The pa
ge will now show the webpage, website or websites that you have installed the tracker code to. Click on the View Reports link to go to the The System Dashboard.

Step 3 # 3: The Dashboard

The Dashboard is your Google homepage. Through this page, you can access almost any information you would require about your website, or even any page within the website. Once you have signed into the The System website, you will be redirected to the list of website profiles, that is, the analytics reports of any and all websites that you have installed the Google Analytics tracker code.

Once you are on the Dashboard, you can view the following analytics about your website:

Site Usage: The site usage column gives you the relevant information about the traffic for your website. The Visits column tells you the number of visits and unique visits in a given time frame. You can also know about the number of page views per visit at the Dashboard.

You can also find out the Bounce rate of your website or webpage. Bounce rate is the number of visitors to your websites who browsed away from your website directly from the landing page or the home page. Analytics engine also tells you the exact amount of time one particular user has spent on your website. It can also calculate the percentage of new and unique visits on your website.

Traffic Sources Section: The Traffic Sources Section tells you more about the traffic of your website, and explains it further. You can get information about all the traffic sources for your website. You can also divide your traffic from direct traffic, Search Engine traffic and Referring sites. Google Analytics can also give you traffic related information regarding your AdSense account if you have one.