According to worldwide StatCounter statistics, Google’s Chrome Browser has just slipped above Firefox to become the 2nd most used internet browser. Despite being the youngest browser in the game, Chrome quickly became a favorite among web and design professionals. It’s fast, it’s light, it gets out of your way. And now it’s #2 in the world. Not bad for a 3 year old.

I use Chrome exclusively, along with several of my office mates. But I don’t discriminate! Safari and Firefox are excellent browsers, and Internet Explorer 8 and 9 have made HUGE strides in functionality and speed. But a handful of surfers, about 3% worldwide, are still lashed to IE 6. A browser that is so behind in functionality and so difficult (and expensive) to build websites for that Microsoft apologized for it, and Google dropped support. But for most of those 3%, IE6 is not a choice. Internal software built especially for IE6 and adopted by large companies during The Dark Times (the late 90s) means that employees often have no other option.

[Cue uplifting music]

That is, until Google Chrome released Chrome Frame, a plugin for IE browsers that allows it to mimic the functionality of Chrome for newer websites without losing legacy support for older ones. It’s pretty amazing. And as of recently you don’t even have to bribe your system administrator to install it for you! Once done, any website that includes this little meta tag: <meta content='chrome=1' http-equiv='X-UA-Compatible' />, will attempt to render using Chrome Frame in all its modern, cutting edge glory. And we include it in ALL new websites.

Mobile usage increases daily and is expected to surpass desktop internet usage by 2014. Android OS devices, which are known for supporting Flash, are starting to overtake Apple’s iPhone in number of units sold. Why would Adobe decided to stop supporting Flash now?

Adobe’s reaction implies that they don’t believe that Flash will improve enough in speed and security to compete against quicker and friendly HTML5 that already has the lead in mobile browsing development. Add the fact that Apple made it beyond clear that Flash would never be supported on the iPhone and iPad, and you end up with half of the mobile internet market at best being able to view Flash in some capacity.

So, there’s still regular desktop browsing. Why can’t Flash survive there? The relatively new but fast growing concept of Responsive Design prevents the use of Flash. The idea of Responsive Design is to create and develop your site once with HTML5 and CSS3 in a way that allows the design to display correctly to the specifications of the device it is viewed on. For that to happen, the site must be compatible with mobile browsing practices, which again means no Flash can be used.

Flash has had it’s time in the sun for web development. Now, it appears, it’s time to move on.

For anyone that’s not aware, Google launched Buzz in early February. Buzz is a new social networking platform that is meant to start conversations about the things you find interesting. The most interesting features are: that it’s built into GMail, you can connect sites you already use, see updates in real-time, share publicly or privately with your followers, and the capability to see photo/video thumbnails with each post. Sounds Awesome, right!

Well…maybe. Now that the privacy issues have been hammered out let’s take a brief look into if it really “works” for users.

The social media landscape is filled with many players. Of course, the ultimate powerhouses are the same as they were 2 years ago, Facebook and Twitter. Personally, I don’t see this changing anytime soon. So where does that leave Google’s stamp on social media?

I’m still trying to figure that out, and I am not alone. A quick Twitter survey from my followers indicated that, users are not sure how it fits it into their digital lifestyle or if it fits at all.

Using myself and a host of friends and colleagues as examples: we all use Facebook and Twitter. So why use, Buzz? In fact, most of the people I follow are posting from Twitter or Google Reader without actually “using” Buzz at all.  Their posts look strangely familiar, oh yeah, I already saw them on Twitter. So what value does Buzz have for me?

Social Media users are struggling to find relevance in the noise. So a platform that pushes comments of your friends friends, seems to add to the noise. However, Google intentionally made Buzz different because it wants Buzz to evoke a different type of interaction. For example, after posting a Buzz about the use of the service. Several of my followers commented, a friend from college, a freelancer (that I’ve never physically met) and a family member. Don’t get me wrong, this can be achieved via Facebook and Twitter, but with Buzz, the conversation is in my face as it happens. This point will dictate whether Buzz lives or dies in the coming months.

So what does all this mean? Simply potential. I wouldn’t write off Buzz just yet, nor would I jump on the band wagon singing praises. We will just have to wait and see.

Go ahead, try it out and then chime back in here. I’d love to hear your thoughts on Google Buzz.

What does this mean to you?

It means that those fancy little meta-keywords you’ve used to increase search traffic and page rank is all for naught (officially). With Yahoo! throwing in the towel, none of the major search engines – such as Google, Bing, Ask, and Yahoo! – provide support for the tag anymore. Sites that have relied on meta-keywords, will in fact notice a slight drop in page rank, and perhaps a drop in new traffic from search engines. Since this has been a long-coming phase-out, the change shouldn’t be that dramatic. However, many firms that claim to provide SEO services, do in fact leverage this method more than any other.

How can you adapt?

Search engines use deep, ominous, unknown algorithms to determine what sites they’ll serve up when a query has been made by a user. While we don’t know all that they look for, we do know things they like. Some things you should start considering are:

• Site content: is the content on your site relevant to users? Is it rich in keywords, like the ones you would hope would display your site in search queries?
• Code/mark-up: is your site using clean, standards compliant code?
• Title tags: do the title tags on your site’s pages adequately explain what is on the page?
• Site maps: have you taken the time to submit XML site maps to all major search engines?
• URL’s: do the URL’s on your site contain unintelligible naming conventions, or are you using keyword-rich permalinks? Such as using www.yourdomain.com/who-we-are/our-team rather than www.yourdomain.com/services/?p=123

This should be a quick hit-list you can use to call up your current SEO firm and see exactly how adequately their search services are, and take necessary steps to rectify any potential issue you may encounter with these new changes. Of course there are many many other ways to improve SEO performance, however the bottom line in SEO is about text, links, popularity and reputation.

Notice anything different? Twitter has redesigned the page, and put absolute focus on a new feature headlined by “See what people are saying about…” followed by a search bar. Results are generated by finding users who have posted “tweets” including your search term/phrase.

What is the significance of this occurrence? Simple. Twitter has finally taken the first step in unseating Google as the dominant organic search site. You may think I’m crazy in this belief, but I am willing to bet that sooner or later, Twitter will in fact overtake Google as the #1 online search service (sorry Bing).

The reason? Results aren’t based on some ominous algorithm cooked up by the crew in Mountain View California. Instead, results are compiled by information from people just like you and me. Why would this happen? I’ll give you a good example: About a month or two ago we had a terrible thunderstorm come through Atlanta, that happened to spawn a number of tornadoes along the way. My satellite reception in my home became non-existent, and power was eventually lost. In order to keep aware of the location of the tornadoes, and the storm system in general, I grabbed my iPhone, launched Tweetie, and performed a search for “tornado”. Immediately I received hundred of tweets detailing the events happening around the city from the perspective of everyday people.

Long story short, Twitter made it possible for me to stay informed of current events in real time, without the need for editorialized news services. The difference between traditional search, from Google’s perspective, and a Twitter search has everything to do with the timing of the results. A Twitter search can generate results only seconds old, whereas high ranking Google results, have been made possible due to ongoing SEO initiatives.

So, in closing, do you agree? Is Twitter > Google? How do you see the search game unfolding?