The science of webometrics (also referred to as cybermetrics) aims to quantify the World Wide Web to get knowledge about the number and types of hyperlinks, the structure of the World Wide Web, and using patterns. According to Björneborn and Ingwersen, the definition of webometrics is "the study of the quantitative aspects of the construction and use of information resources, structures and technologies on the Web drawing on bibliometric and informetric approaches." The term webometrics was coined by Almind and Ingwersen (1997). A second definition of webometrics has also been introduced, "the study of web-based content with primarily quantitative methods for social science research goals using techniques that are not specific to one field of study", which emphasizes the development of applied methods for use in the wider social sciences. The purpose of this alternative definition was to help publicize appropriate methods outside the information-science discipline rather than to replace the original definition within information science. Similar scientific fields are: bibliometrics, informetrics, scientometrics, virtual ethnography, and web mining. One relatively straightforward measure is the "web impact factor" (WIF) introduced by Ingwersen (1998). The WIF measure may be defined as the number of web pages in a web site receiving links from other web sites, divided by the number of web pages published in the site that are accessible to the crawler. However, the use of WIF has been disregarded due to the mathematical artifacts derived from power law distributions of these variables. Other similar indicators using size of the institution instead of number of webpages have been proved more useful.
SemEval
SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented
Macroelectronics
Macroelectronics are flexible electronics that cover a large area. The most visible example of macroelectronics is flat-panel displays. Other emerging applications include rollable display, printable thin film solar cell and electronic skin. Flat-panel displays fabricated on glass substrates are fragile so fabricating directly on flexible substrates, such as polymers is being explored. Displays made on thin polymer substrates can be more rugged than glass. In September 2005, Philips Polymer Vision revealed the world's first prototype of a rollable electronic reader, which can unfold to a 5-inch display and roll back into a pocket-size (100×60×20 mm) device. Thin-film devices on flexible polymer substrates can lend themselves to low-cost fabrication processes (i.e., roll-to-roll printing), resulting in lightweight, rugged and flexible macroelectronic products.
Brand networking
Brand networking is the engagement of a social networking service around a brand by providing consumers with a platform of relevant content, elements of participation, and a currency, score, or ranking. Brand networking creates communities that serve as interactive destinations to encourage brand participation online and off. This evolved level of user participation with the brand facilitates strong relationships with consumers, leverages sales, and generates fan equity. The concept builds on the marketing literature on brand communities, which describes specialized, non-geographically bound groups of consumers organized around shared interest in a brand, and on subsequent research on social-media-based brand communities that examines how such groups operate when embedded in general-purpose networking platforms. == History == The development and growth of social networking in the early 2000s gave birth to brand networking. Brands saw the immediate potential to reach and interact with consumers through online platforms like Facebook and MySpace. At first, the ability to reach consumers through these platforms was inadequate; brands had the option to join as members or simply advertise on these sites. The potential existed to not only display advertisements to consumers, but to encourage them to interact with the brand. This is when brands made the shift to create their own networking platforms. Less evolved attempts to connect brands with consumers via networking are typically built as online platforms meant only to complement a product/service and are limited in functionality. Typically these sites offer consumers the opportunity to interact through discussion boards and group pages. The Guiding Light Community was built to complement the popular CBS television soap opera. The site offers members reward points for contributing content to discussion boards and blogs (which is all geared toward the show). == Structure == Brand networking is more than the utilization of a social networking platform; it is connecting consumers together and constructing relationships directly with the brand. Three key elements, in unity, create effective brand networking: relevant content, elements of participation, and a competitive currency. Websites in conjunction with other media types (television, radio, print) present content around a vertical industry, sector of interest, or cultural and social issues for a brand. This can be in areas such as health, marketing, or business, or any content relevant to the brand message. Such content is not only provided by the brand but also in the form of consumer-generated media. Research on brand-related user-generated content across major platforms suggests that the form and tone of consumer contributions vary by platform, with promotional content more common on some networks and response-oriented content on others. A brand provides participation with consumers online and offline. This is accomplished through the combination of typical social networking features online, such as personalised pages, friend lists, groups, and messaging, alongside elements of involvement offline. This is not simply connecting an online platform with mobile devices, but providing separate mobile features jointly with a secondary media type to drive online usage and build relationships with the brand on the go. By participating in mobile campaigns, users are interacting with the brand outside of traditional brick and mortar or e-commerce destinations. Empirical work on consumer brand engagement in social media frames such participation along cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. The final element of brand networking involves incentivising participation with the other two elements. The addition of a currency or point system acts as an anchor to the brand and network and creates a competitive dynamic between consumers. These points are distributed for activity carried out outside of the networking site. By incentivising usage offline, the brand image is reinforced for the consumer and strengthens the relationship. Consumers are turned into promoters for both the brand and the users' benefit. The use of points, badges, leaderboards, and similar mechanics is described in the marketing literature as gamification, and has been linked to higher participation rates in mobile and loyalty programmes. == Fan equity == Fan equity is the idea that by locking in consumers to a brand, they are turned into fans of the brand. As fans, they promote, interact, and consume on a daily basis and become assets. Apple Inc. is one example of a company often cited as possessing fan equity. Customers of Apple are extremely brand loyal and are assets to the company. Creating a fan-generated brand is a difficult but effective method of business. Through the use of brand networking, a company is able to build a consumer or fan base that provides a strong relationship between business and consumers. The trust is formed and fans do a lot of work for the brand by word of mouth. Peer-to-peer channels are the strongest means of communication for a brand, but also one in which the brand can only influence and not control. Subsequent research links community engagement with brand trust, identifying community engagement as a mediator between social-media brand community participation and trust. This method of business is argued to be a relationship handled by the brand generally for its own gain. Many fans do not realise the work they are doing for companies by using their product or service. Facebook is a fan-based brand that has become a global phenomenon through customer use, with social media features such as sharing and commenting. With the growth of social media, marketing and advertising through social media has continued to expand. Brands can display and promote their products or services at a fast rate, with consumers sharing and contributing to the brand on a global scale. This can also be seen as online word of mouth exposure that can produce positive or negative feedback for brands. Once consumers become fans they are typically loyal, which can create positive word of mouth for a brand. Fans become a valuable asset, boosting the status and reputation of a brand. Different perceptions of brands can be linked to a person's origin or religion, which creates a difficulty when trying to enter a market or gain market share. Businesses need to be aware of the types of products or services they introduce to a specific market, ensuring they are culturally sensitive. Fan pages are created on social media to maintain the relationship between brands and consumers. By engaging and interacting with consumers, brands obtain fans and produce positive imaging. Some fans become attached to brands and are often encouraged to remain as fans through the use of celebrities endorsing the brand. Research on parasocial interaction in social-media environments suggests that one-sided emotional bonds that consumers form with endorsers and brand personae help convert ordinary followers into engaged fans.
Creepiness
Creepiness is the state of being creepy, or causing an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease to someone and/or something. Certain traits or hobbies may make people seem creepy to others; interest in horror or the macabre might come across as 'creepy', and often people who are perverted or exhibit predatory behavior are called 'creeps'. The internet, especially some functions of social media, has been described as increasingly creepy. Adam Kotsko has compared the modern conception of creepiness to the Freudian concept of unheimlich. The term has also been used to describe paranormal or supernatural phenomena. Some people have phobias which are irrational fears, which can make them perceive something as creepy. == History and studies == "Creepiness" is subjective: for example some dolls have been described as creepy, while what makes something "creepy" or "strange" to someone might seem normal to someone else. The adjective "creepy", referring to a feeling of creeping in the flesh, was first used in 1831, but it was Charles Dickens who coined and popularized the term "the creeps" in his 1849 novel David Copperfield. In the 20th century, association was made between involuntary celibacy and creepiness. The concept of creepiness has only recently been formally addressed in social media marketing. The sensation of creepiness has only recently been the subject of psychological research, despite the widespread colloquial use of the word throughout the years. Francis T. McAndrew of Knox College is the first psychologist to do an empirical study on creepiness. == Causes == The state of creepiness has been associated with "feeling scared, nervous, anxious or worried", "awkward or uncomfortable", "vulnerable or violated" in a study conducted by Watt et al. This state arises in the presence of a creepy element, which can be an individual or, as recently observed, new technologies. === Individuals === Creepiness can be caused by the appearance of an individual. Another study investigated the characteristics that make people creepy. Creepy people were thought to be more often male than female by an overwhelming majority of participants (around 95% of both male and female participants). Another study conducted by Watt et al. also found that participants associated the ectomorphic body type (more linear) with creepiness, more than the other two body types (51% vs mesomorphic, 24% and endomorphic, 23%). Other cues of creepiness included low hygiene, especially according to female participants, and a disheveled appearance. Participants also identified the face as an area with potentially creepy features: in particular the eyes and the teeth. Both of those physical features were deemed creepy not only for their unpleasant appearance (ex. squinty eyes or crooked teeth) but also for the movements and expressions they engaged it (ex. darting eye movements and odd smiles). In fact, appearance does not seem to be the only factor making an individual creepy: behaviors provide cues as well. Behaviors such as "being unusually quiet and staring (34%), following or lurking (15%), behaving abnormally (21%), or in a socially awkward, "sketchy" or suspicious way (20%)" are all contributing to a feeling of creepiness, as described by Watt et al.'s study. === Technology === In addition to other individuals, new technologies, such as marketing's targeted ads and AI, have been qualified as creepy. A study by Moore et al. described what aspect of marketing participants considered creepy. The main three reasons are the following: using invasive tactics, causing discomfort and violating of norms. Invasive tactics are practiced by marketers that know so much about the consumer that the ads are "creepily" personalized. Secondly, some ads create discomfort by making the consumer question "the motives of the company advertising the product". Finally, some ads violate social norms by having inappropriate content, for example by unnecessarily sexualizing it. It is marketing's extensive knowledge used in an improper way, together with a certain loss of control over our data, that creates a feeling of creepiness. Another creepy aspect of technology is human-looking AI: this phenomenon is called the uncanny valley. Humans find robots creepy when they start closely resembling humans. It has been hypothesized that the reason why they are viewed as creepy is because they violate our notion of how a robot should look. A study focusing on children's responses to this phenomenon found evidence to support the hypothesis. == Evolutionary explanation == Several studies have hypothesized that creepiness is an evolutionary response to potentially dangerous situations. It could be linked to a mechanism called agent detection which makes individuals expect malignant agents to be responsible for small changes in the environment. McAndrew et al. illustrates the idea with the example of a person hearing some noises while walking in a dark alley. That person would go in high alert, fearing that some dangerous individual was there. If that was not the case the loss would be small. If, on the other hand, a dangerous individual was actually in the alley and the person had not been alerted by this creepy feeling, the loss could have been significant. Creepiness would therefore serve the purpose of alerting us in situations in which the danger is not outright obvious but rather ambiguous. In this case, ambiguity both refers to the possible presence of a threat and to its nature, sexual or physical for example. Creepiness "may reside in between the unknowing and the fear" in the sense that individuals experiencing it are unsure if there truly is something to fear or not. Creepy characteristics are not simply caused by threat potential: in fact, ectomorphic body types are not the most powerful bodies and facial expressions are not a proxy of physical strength either. Therefore, creepiness is not only related to how threatening a characteristic is, in the sense of how dangerous and strong the individual can be. There are more facets to consider. Another characteristic of creepiness is unpredictable behavior. Unpredictability links back to this idea of ambiguity. When an individual is unpredictable it is not possible to tell when their behavior will turn violent: this adds to the ambiguity of a potentially dangerous situation. This theory is endorsed by studies. Not only is unpredictability directly listed as a creepy characteristic, but other behaviors, such as norm-breaking behaviors are indirectly linked with unpredictability. Such behaviors show that the individual does not conform to some social standards others would expect in a given situation. For example, the aforementioned staring at strangers or lack of hygiene—behaviors that make us uneasy or creeped out because they do not fit the norm and therefore are not expected. More generally, participants tended to define creepiness as "different" in the sense of not behaving, or looking, socially acceptable. Such differences point towards a "social mismatch". Humans have a natural system of detection of such mismatch: a physical feeling of coldness. When an individual is creeped out, they report feeling those "cold chills". This phenomenon has been studied by Leander et al, with relation to nonverbal mimicry in social interactions, meaning the unintentional copying of another's behavior. Inappropriate mimicry may leave a person feeling like something is off about the other. Absence of non-verbal mimicry in a friendly interaction, or the presence of it in a professional setting, raises suspicion as it does not follow the relevant social norms. Individuals are left wondering what other unusual behavior the other might engage in.
Niki.ai
Niki was an artificial intelligence company headquartered in Bangalore, Karnataka. It was founded in May 2015 by IIT Kharagpur graduates Sachin Jaiswal, Keshav Prawasi, Shishir Modi, and Nitin Babel. The Niki android app was launched for a limited beta in June 2015, then released for public during YourStory's TechSparks 2015, and is a Tech30 company. The company raised an undisclosed amount in seed funding from Unilazer Ventures, a Mumbai-based VC firm founded by Ronnie Screwvala, in October 2015. This was followed by another seed funding round by Ratan Tata in May 2016. The company then raised US$2 million in Series A round of funding from SAP.iO, existing investors and some US and German-based investors, among others. Niki.ai shut down in October 2021 as per media reports. Website not working. == Product == The product is an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot which works as an intelligent personal assistant, named Niki. Leveraging natural language processing and machine learning, Niki presents a chat-based natural language user interface to the users where they can interact with Niki in their natural language. Niki understands how users chat in India, deciphers the words, in the context of product/services that they would like to purchase, and comes up with apt recommendations. Initially, it was only available on the Android platform as a mobile app. The company has expanded its operations to the Facebook Messenger and Apple iOS platforms. The company aims to soon be present on more messaging platforms like Slack and WhatsApp. The company currently provides 20+ services to over 2 million consumers, covering a wide spectrum ranging from utility services like mobile recharge, bill payments, travel services like cabs, buses, hotels and entertainment services like movies and events. Services such as flights and healthcare are also planned. == Partnerships == In September 2017, Infosys Finacle joined with Niki.ai to provide chat-based service to banking customers. In August 2017, Niki partnered with LazyPay to enable a 'buy now, pay later' feature for its users.
Web syndication
Web syndication is making content available from one website to other sites. Most commonly, websites are made available to provide either summaries or full renditions of a website's recently added content. The term may also describe other kinds of content licensing for reuse. Contemporary web syndicates include: MSN, Excite, and Yahoo! News. == Motivation == For the subscribing sites, syndication is an effective way of adding greater depth and immediacy of information to their pages, making them more attractive to users. For the provider site, syndication increases exposure. This generates new traffic for the provider site—making syndication an easy and relatively cheap, or even free, form of advertisement. Content syndication has become an effective strategy for link building, as search engine optimization has become an increasingly important topic among website owners and online marketers. Links embedded within the syndicated content are typically optimized around anchor terms that will point an optimized link back to the website that the content author is trying to promote. These links tell the algorithms of the search engines that the website being linked to is an authority for the keyword that is being used as the anchor text. However the rollout of Google Panda's algorithm may not reflect this authority in its SERP rankings based on quality scores generated by the sites linking to the authority. The prevalence of web syndication is also of note to online marketers, since web surfers are becoming increasingly wary of providing personal information for marketing materials (such as signing up for a newsletter) and expect the ability to subscribe to a feed instead. Although the format could be anything transported over HTTP, such as HTML or JavaScript, it is more commonly XML. Web syndication formats include RSS, Atom, and JSON Feed. == History == Syndication first arose in earlier media such as print, radio, and television, allowing content creators to reach a wider audience. In the case of radio, the United States Federal government proposed a syndicate in 1924 so that the country's executives could quickly and efficiently reach the entire population. In the case of television, it is often said that "Syndication is where the real money is." Additionally, syndication accounts for the bulk of TV programming. One predecessor of web syndication is the Meta Content Framework (MCF), developed in 1996 by Ramanathan V. Guha and others in Apple Computer's Advanced Technology Group. Today, millions of online publishers, including newspapers, commercial websites, and blogs, distribute their news headlines, product offers, and blog postings in the news feed. == As a commercial model == Conventional syndication businesses such as Reuters and Associated Press thrive on the internet by offering their content to media partners on a subscription basis, using business models established in earlier media forms. Commercial web syndication can be categorized in three ways: by business models by types of content by methods for selecting distribution partners Commercial web syndication involves partnerships between content producers and distribution outlets. There are different structures of partnership agreements. One such structure is licensing content, in which distribution partners pay a fee to the content creators for the right to publish the content. Another structure is ad-supported content, in which publishers share revenues derived from advertising on syndicated content with that content's producer. A third structure is free, or barter syndication, in which no currency changes hands between publishers and content producers. This requires the content producers to generate revenue from another source, such as embedded advertising or subscriptions. Alternatively, they could distribute content without remuneration. Typically, those who create and distribute content free are promotional entities, vanity publishers, or government entities. Types of content syndicated include RSS or Atom Feeds and full content. With RSS feeds, headlines, summaries, and sometimes a modified version of the original full content is displayed on users' feed readers. With full content, the entire content—which might be text, audio, video, applications/widgets, or user-generated content—appears unaltered on the publisher's site. There are two methods for selecting distribution partners. The content creator can hand-pick syndication partners based on specific criteria, such as the size or quality of their audiences. Alternatively, the content creator can allow publisher sites or users to opt into carrying the content through an automated system. Some of these automated "content marketplace" systems involve careful screening of potential publishers by the content creator to ensure that the material does not end up in an inappropriate environment. Just as syndication is a source of profit for TV producers and radio producers, it also functions to maximize profit for Internet content producers. As the Internet has increased in size it has become increasingly difficult for content producers to aggregate a sufficiently large audience to support the creation of high-quality content. Syndication enables content creators to amortize the cost of producing content by licensing it across multiple publishers or by maximizing the distribution of advertising-supported content. A potential drawback for content creators, however, is that they can lose control over the presentation of their content when they syndicate it to other parties. Distribution partners benefit by receiving content either at a discounted price, or free. One potential drawback for publishers, however, is that because the content is duplicated at other publisher sites, they cannot have an "exclusive" on the content. For users, the fact that syndication enables the production and maintenance of content allows them to find and consume content on the Internet. One potential drawback for them is that they may run into duplicate content, which could be an annoyance. == E-commerce == Web syndication has been used to distribute product content such as feature descriptions, images, and specifications. As manufacturers are regarded as authorities and most sales are not achieved on manufacturer websites, manufacturers allow retailers or dealers to publish the information on their sites. Through syndication, manufacturers may pass relevant information to channel partners. Such web syndication has been shown to increase sales. Web syndication has also been found effective as a search engine optimization technique.