Dividends Are Stronger Than Ever
Dan Caplinger - October 12, 2012
With dividend-paying stocks more popular among investors than ever, some controversy has arisen about whether there's a dividend bubble that could send those stocks plunging in the future. Yet despite extreme investor optimism about dividend payers, one fact is clear: On the whole, stocks are doing a good job of boosting their payouts to keep up with rising share prices.
Gauging dividend health
Every quarter, S&P Dow Jones Indices provides commentary (link opens PDF file) about the state of the dividend-paying stock universe. Looking at the figures that S&P compiles provides a useful snapshot of what's happening among dividend stocks and which way prevailing trends are moving.
By all accounts, dividend stocks had an extremely strong quarter from July to September. With stocks in aggregate giving shareholders $8.8 billion more in dividends during the third quarter of 2012, S&P believes that the U.S. stock market has never paid more in aggregate dividend distributions than it's paying currently.
Moreover, many more companies are financially secure enough to raise their payouts than are nervous enough to cut back on their dividends. During the quarter, 439 stocks implemented dividend increases, while just 53 reduced their payouts.
Taking a broader view to encompass the past 12 months, you can see just how important dividends have been to the stock market's general health. Since this time last year, a whopping 2,270 companies have boosted their dividends, the highest level since 2007. Even more impressive is the $42 billion in extra dividends coming from companies that raised their payouts, as well as $17.7 billion in new initial payouts.
Where's the growth coming from?
Obviously, some well-known names account for a lot of the dollar volume of new dividends going out. Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) just started its dividend, but at its current rate, it will distribute $10 billion in payouts to shareholders each year. Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO) will give shareholders more than $1.25 billion extra in dividends annually, thanks to its recent 75% boost in its payout rate. And while Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) is a much smaller company than it used to be, its yield of more than 3% equates to an annual payout of more than half a billion dollars -- not small change for a stock with a market cap of just $16 billion.
But with hundreds of stocks boosting their payouts, this isn't just an isolated phenomenon. Companies have realized how much investors want to see the confidence that dividends communicate, and they're responding by putting their money where their mouths are.
What goes up must come down, right?
The obvious question is whether the current love-fest for dividend stocks will eventually come to an end. On one hand, companies aren't just raising dividends arbitrarily; in most cases, improving profits underlie the payout hikes. Moreover, better profits have pushed payout ratios to extremely low levels, leaving companies with more room than usual to increase the portion of earnings they return to shareholders.
In some areas, dividends are coming down. Mortgage REITs American Capital Agency (Nasdaq: AGNC) and Chimera Investment (NYSE: CIM), for instance, have cut their payouts in the past year as conditions in the mortgage-backed securities market have deteriorated somewhat. Yet mortgage REITs have mandated minimum dividends based on earnings that can lead to more volatility than with other businesses, which can implement more stable dividend policies that better account for cyclical movements.
The longer-term answer to the question of whether dividends must fall at some point in the future is that it depends on what happens with earnings. If high margins and strong corporate performance prove unsustainable, then pressure on profits could bring dividend expansion to a halt. In all likelihood, though, it would take a disruption on a similar scale to 2008's bear market in order to bring on waves of dividend decreases. For investors hungry for income, good news is likely to keep coming for a while.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
FB gets more transparent.
Do they have a long way to go?
Suzanne Choney , NBC News - 1 day
Facebook to ask your permission before sharing your actions
NBC News
Tired of Facebook sharing every little article you read or song you listen to, using its "Open Graph" system? So is Facebook, apparently. Apps will soon need user permission to share "like," "follow," "listen," "read" or "watch" actions, according to product engineer Henry Zhang, who posted the new rules on Facebook's developer blog.
"In order to provide users with experiences that meet their expectations, we will no longer approve custom actions that publish stories as people consume content," he wrote. "These apps must use the appropriate built-in actions or create a different sharing experience."
Advertise | AdChoices
"Apps that help people automatically share stories about content as they consume it, such as the music you are listening to, can be good experiences when apps create clear expectations for the user of what is being shared and when," Zhang wrote. "When apps automatically publish stories on a person’s behalf in a way that is unexpected, such as when they browse an online store, it can surprise and confuse people."
The change is to take place "in the next 90 days," Zhang said.
Meanwhile, Facebook stories that lead with images and location are being made "more prominent" in Facebook's news feeds and Timeline, Zhang said.
"In early tests, the new image-led stories have shown 70 percent more clicks for apps that provide high quality, relevant imagery with low spam rates," Zhang wrote. "In certain cases, we have seen these stories generate up to 50x more Likes than equivalent story types from before. The new location stories provide double-digit gains in distribution to apps."
The Open Graph changes may be welcome, but they're not totally altruistic: Facebook will annoy fewer of its users, but its goal is probably to be better "liked" by the Federal Trade Commission. The agency recently settled charges with Facebook over deceiving consumers and making them share more personal info they they intended.
The settlement requires Facebook to get user consent for some changes to privacy settings, and also subjects the site to 20 years of independent audits.
Check out Technolog, Gadgetbox, Digital Life and In-Game on Facebook, and on Twitter, follow Suzanne Choney.
Suzanne Choney , NBC News - 1 day
Facebook to ask your permission before sharing your actions
NBC News
Tired of Facebook sharing every little article you read or song you listen to, using its "Open Graph" system? So is Facebook, apparently. Apps will soon need user permission to share "like," "follow," "listen," "read" or "watch" actions, according to product engineer Henry Zhang, who posted the new rules on Facebook's developer blog.
"In order to provide users with experiences that meet their expectations, we will no longer approve custom actions that publish stories as people consume content," he wrote. "These apps must use the appropriate built-in actions or create a different sharing experience."
Advertise | AdChoices
"Apps that help people automatically share stories about content as they consume it, such as the music you are listening to, can be good experiences when apps create clear expectations for the user of what is being shared and when," Zhang wrote. "When apps automatically publish stories on a person’s behalf in a way that is unexpected, such as when they browse an online store, it can surprise and confuse people."
The change is to take place "in the next 90 days," Zhang said.
Meanwhile, Facebook stories that lead with images and location are being made "more prominent" in Facebook's news feeds and Timeline, Zhang said.
"In early tests, the new image-led stories have shown 70 percent more clicks for apps that provide high quality, relevant imagery with low spam rates," Zhang wrote. "In certain cases, we have seen these stories generate up to 50x more Likes than equivalent story types from before. The new location stories provide double-digit gains in distribution to apps."
The Open Graph changes may be welcome, but they're not totally altruistic: Facebook will annoy fewer of its users, but its goal is probably to be better "liked" by the Federal Trade Commission. The agency recently settled charges with Facebook over deceiving consumers and making them share more personal info they they intended.
The settlement requires Facebook to get user consent for some changes to privacy settings, and also subjects the site to 20 years of independent audits.
Check out Technolog, Gadgetbox, Digital Life and In-Game on Facebook, and on Twitter, follow Suzanne Choney.
It's a tough life for car manufacturers.
Vauxhall & Opel could merge with Peugeot Citroen.
Oct 13th, 2012 › Cars UK
GM Europe (Opel and Vauxhall) could extend their deal with PSA (Peugeot Citroen) with a Joint Venture or merger.
When GM Europe and PSA announced they were forming an alliance earlier this year, we asked if this was an admission that the mainstream car market in Europe had changed forever, and an alliance between Opel, Vauxhall, Peugeot and Citroen was the only way to keep the brands viable.
But we did also question what use a projected annual saving of €2 billion by sharing suppliers and co-developing platforms would be to PSA and GM considering their woeful losses. But it looks like bigger things are in store.
La Tribune are reporting that one proposal on the table is for Opel and Vauxhall to merge with Peugeot and Citroen in a European Joint Venture.
Under this scenario GM would take a 30 per cent share in the joint venture – which would mean GM not having to consolidate Opel/Vauxhall’s results thereby losing the biggest hole from its balance sheet – and inject cash in to the JV.
The problem is, sticking the two loss-making businesses together will be pointless unless the root of the problem – too much production capacity in Europe – can be addressed. And that’s a political minefield.
Germany will be a problem, but with a Socialist government now in power in France that seems to believe the relationship between jobs and profits is irrelevant, the partnership could end up dumping the more efficient plants in Germany and the UK and keeping the less efficient plants in France. Which is not going to help their long-term prospects one jot.
Still, at least Opel/Vauxhall and Peugeot Citroen are trying to find a solution.
You might also find these stories interesting:
New Peugeot 208 production cut as sales disappointPSA Peugeot-Citroen: Factory closures & 8,000 job losses plannedVauxhall & Opel - no plant closures before 2014Vauxhall Cascada Convertible: Aimed at hairdressers?Vauxhall Adam (& Opel Adam): GM's new 'MINI' in EuropeGM & Peugeot Citroen Alliance. The beginning of the end for mass market car makers?
Oct 13th, 2012 › Cars UK
GM Europe (Opel and Vauxhall) could extend their deal with PSA (Peugeot Citroen) with a Joint Venture or merger.
When GM Europe and PSA announced they were forming an alliance earlier this year, we asked if this was an admission that the mainstream car market in Europe had changed forever, and an alliance between Opel, Vauxhall, Peugeot and Citroen was the only way to keep the brands viable.
But we did also question what use a projected annual saving of €2 billion by sharing suppliers and co-developing platforms would be to PSA and GM considering their woeful losses. But it looks like bigger things are in store.
La Tribune are reporting that one proposal on the table is for Opel and Vauxhall to merge with Peugeot and Citroen in a European Joint Venture.
Under this scenario GM would take a 30 per cent share in the joint venture – which would mean GM not having to consolidate Opel/Vauxhall’s results thereby losing the biggest hole from its balance sheet – and inject cash in to the JV.
The problem is, sticking the two loss-making businesses together will be pointless unless the root of the problem – too much production capacity in Europe – can be addressed. And that’s a political minefield.
Germany will be a problem, but with a Socialist government now in power in France that seems to believe the relationship between jobs and profits is irrelevant, the partnership could end up dumping the more efficient plants in Germany and the UK and keeping the less efficient plants in France. Which is not going to help their long-term prospects one jot.
Still, at least Opel/Vauxhall and Peugeot Citroen are trying to find a solution.
You might also find these stories interesting:
New Peugeot 208 production cut as sales disappointPSA Peugeot-Citroen: Factory closures & 8,000 job losses plannedVauxhall & Opel - no plant closures before 2014Vauxhall Cascada Convertible: Aimed at hairdressers?Vauxhall Adam (& Opel Adam): GM's new 'MINI' in EuropeGM & Peugeot Citroen Alliance. The beginning of the end for mass market car makers?
Live in any of these cities? The worst traffic list.
Worst traffic list puts Vancouver, Montreal before Toronto
Los Angeles leads TomTom Congestion Index
The Canadian Press Posted: Oct 12, 2012
Worst traffic cities
TomTom North American Congestion Index
(Note:CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
A new survey shows Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto parked among the top five cities in North America when it comes to traffic delays.
Vancouver is second only to Los Angeles in the 26 cities tallied in a traffic-congestion survey from GPS firm TomTom covering the second quarter of this year.
The study compares travel times during non-congested periods with those during peak hours. The difference is expressed as a percentage of increased driving times.
The research, using data drawn from the company's subscribers, shows drivers in Vancouver have their overall commute delayed an extra 33 per cent during congestion compared to when traffic flows smoothly.
Montreal took fourth place in the survey, while Toronto came in fifth, Ottawa was 12th and Calgary was 16th (see top 10 list below).
CBC Toronto reporter Trevor Dunn on Friday asked drivers about the survey. Some were skeptical about its findings.
Toronto cab driver Mansour Hussain said he's certain Toronto gridlock is the worst in Canada.
“I’ve been to Vancouver and I’ve been to Montreal. They are not that bad," he said.
City traffic: How slow can you go?
The top 10 most congested North American cities, ranked by overall congestion level, between April and June 2012 were:
1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%
4. Montreal 28%
5. Toronto 27%
6. Washington 26%
7. Seattle 26%
8.New York 25%
9. Chicago 23%
10. Miami 22%
Source: TomTom Congestion Index
Los Angeles leads TomTom Congestion Index
The Canadian Press Posted: Oct 12, 2012
Worst traffic cities
TomTom North American Congestion Index
(Note:CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
A new survey shows Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto parked among the top five cities in North America when it comes to traffic delays.
Vancouver is second only to Los Angeles in the 26 cities tallied in a traffic-congestion survey from GPS firm TomTom covering the second quarter of this year.
The study compares travel times during non-congested periods with those during peak hours. The difference is expressed as a percentage of increased driving times.
The research, using data drawn from the company's subscribers, shows drivers in Vancouver have their overall commute delayed an extra 33 per cent during congestion compared to when traffic flows smoothly.
Montreal took fourth place in the survey, while Toronto came in fifth, Ottawa was 12th and Calgary was 16th (see top 10 list below).
CBC Toronto reporter Trevor Dunn on Friday asked drivers about the survey. Some were skeptical about its findings.
Toronto cab driver Mansour Hussain said he's certain Toronto gridlock is the worst in Canada.
“I’ve been to Vancouver and I’ve been to Montreal. They are not that bad," he said.
City traffic: How slow can you go?
The top 10 most congested North American cities, ranked by overall congestion level, between April and June 2012 were:
1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%
4. Montreal 28%
5. Toronto 27%
6. Washington 26%
7. Seattle 26%
8.New York 25%
9. Chicago 23%
10. Miami 22%
Source: TomTom Congestion Index
Torrents, downloading and you. The changes coming.
File Sharers, Get Ready For Copyright Violation Warnings
JOHN PAUL TITLOW· YESTERDAY
4 Comments
inShare
11
After a series of delays, the Center for Copyright Information's "six strikes" anti-piracy scheme has a launch date. Starting on November 28, AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner and Verizon will start sending out warnings to users who download copyrighted material without authorization. But don't quit those Torrent networks just yet.
The CCI is a partnership between the Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, and the major Internet service providers in the U.S. Under the group's Copyright Alert System, Internet users who download unauthorized material will receive a series of messages explaining that it's illegal to do so and encouraging them to stop.
Initial concerns that the system could lead to users being cut off from the Internet appear to be unfounded. It's really about educating (okay, scaring) people rather than punishing them.
"Alerts will be non-punitive and progressive in nature," reads the CCI's website. "Successive alerts will reinforce the seriousness of the copyright infringement and inform the recipient how to address the activity that is precipitating the alerts."
After six warnings, the provider may mete out penalties, although it's not entirely clear what those would be. Slowing down, or throttling, customers' Internet connections is apparently on the table, but users won't be kicked offline permanently, according to the CCI. The most egregious offenders would be deemed "unreachable" by the program and subsequently ignored, according to TorrentFreak.
From the look of it, the system is largely toothless. While it might not stop hardcore copyright violators, though, receiving a scary-sounding warning from a service provider might be enough to stop casual downloaders in their tracks. If all goes according to the CCI's plan, that may lead to a substantial decrease in copyright infringement overall.
The system will arrive at a pivotal moment in what are often referred to as the Copyright Wars. Earlier this year, big content's fight against piracy began to resemble literal warfare when New Zealand police raided the mansion of Kim Dotcom. The Megaupload founder will stand trial for copyright infringement and related charges next year, but isn't wasting anytime trying to get his latest venture - a music service called Megabox - off the ground.
Dotcom's arrest came within days of another watershed moment in the Copyright Wars. After overwhelming opposition from tech companies and the public, the controversial anti-piracy legislation known as SOPA and PIPA were effectively killed after losing support in the U.S. Congress.
The Copyright Alert System is the latest weapon in the content industry's war on piracy, having failed on the legislative front and gotten nowhere by suing consumers directly. With the CAS, they're taking a decidedly less draconian approach, hoping to scare enough people away from illegal downloading to make a difference. Whatever the results are, they will no doubt help inform the next phase of this battle, which is inevitably on the horizon.
JOHN PAUL TITLOW· YESTERDAY
4 Comments
inShare
11
After a series of delays, the Center for Copyright Information's "six strikes" anti-piracy scheme has a launch date. Starting on November 28, AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner and Verizon will start sending out warnings to users who download copyrighted material without authorization. But don't quit those Torrent networks just yet.
The CCI is a partnership between the Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, and the major Internet service providers in the U.S. Under the group's Copyright Alert System, Internet users who download unauthorized material will receive a series of messages explaining that it's illegal to do so and encouraging them to stop.
Initial concerns that the system could lead to users being cut off from the Internet appear to be unfounded. It's really about educating (okay, scaring) people rather than punishing them.
"Alerts will be non-punitive and progressive in nature," reads the CCI's website. "Successive alerts will reinforce the seriousness of the copyright infringement and inform the recipient how to address the activity that is precipitating the alerts."
After six warnings, the provider may mete out penalties, although it's not entirely clear what those would be. Slowing down, or throttling, customers' Internet connections is apparently on the table, but users won't be kicked offline permanently, according to the CCI. The most egregious offenders would be deemed "unreachable" by the program and subsequently ignored, according to TorrentFreak.
From the look of it, the system is largely toothless. While it might not stop hardcore copyright violators, though, receiving a scary-sounding warning from a service provider might be enough to stop casual downloaders in their tracks. If all goes according to the CCI's plan, that may lead to a substantial decrease in copyright infringement overall.
The system will arrive at a pivotal moment in what are often referred to as the Copyright Wars. Earlier this year, big content's fight against piracy began to resemble literal warfare when New Zealand police raided the mansion of Kim Dotcom. The Megaupload founder will stand trial for copyright infringement and related charges next year, but isn't wasting anytime trying to get his latest venture - a music service called Megabox - off the ground.
Dotcom's arrest came within days of another watershed moment in the Copyright Wars. After overwhelming opposition from tech companies and the public, the controversial anti-piracy legislation known as SOPA and PIPA were effectively killed after losing support in the U.S. Congress.
The Copyright Alert System is the latest weapon in the content industry's war on piracy, having failed on the legislative front and gotten nowhere by suing consumers directly. With the CAS, they're taking a decidedly less draconian approach, hoping to scare enough people away from illegal downloading to make a difference. Whatever the results are, they will no doubt help inform the next phase of this battle, which is inevitably on the horizon.
iPhone user? Use Google or FB? A little reminder...
By default, Safari blocks cookies from third parties. Most browsers allow users to block cookies, but don’t set it as a default. Google happens to operate many of its advertising services, including DoubleClick, from a domain outside Google.com — a domain which Safari treats as a third party. So even if a user was logged into Google, DoubleClick was blocked from serving ads to the user — unless that user approved the cookie by, say, filling out a form.
How did Google get around that?
The company put a hidden field in some of its sites that essentially acted as a form, even though the user never filled out anything. That told Safari it was OK for DoubleClick to serve ads to the unknowing, unwitting user.
Why would Google do that?
Google says it’s all an accident. Even though Google’s primary business is advertising and the Safari browser on iPhones and iPads is said to account for more than 50% of mobile browsing, Google says it was merely taking advantage of a known workaround in Safari that lets do things like use Google’s “+1″ buttons on sites outside the Google.com domain.
Come again?
Modules like the “+1″ button and the Facebook Like button appear on many different sites, and users generally expect them to work without changing their browser settings. Facebook even encourages developers to exploit the same Safari quirk Google targeted here. Google says it was only trying to enable such functionality with those hidden fields, and it “didn’t anticipate” advertising cookies to be set on Safari.
Is Google doing anything about it?
Yes, it says it’s started removing these cookies from Safari browsers.
What does Google do with the information it collected?
Until it started removing the cookies, the company used the information mainly to tailor ads based on the websites you visited. The cookie doesn’t track personal information, such as your address or phone number.
Will Google face any penalties for this?
It’s unclear. Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this might qualify. For its part, the FTC acknowledged to Mashable that it was aware of the issue, but didn’t say if it would do anything about it.
Is Google the only one doing this?
No. The original testing by Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer pointed the finger at three other companies — Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group and PointRoll — all of which exploit Safari’s quirks to serve ads to unsuspecting users.
Can Apple do anything about this “quirk?”
Apple says it’s working on a way to “put a stop” to third parties circumventing Safari’s privacy settings.
What can I do if I’m concerned about this?
To ensure that no one puts unwanted cookies on your device, simply go into your browser settings and choose the option to never accept cookies.
However, that will also mean you’ll have a hard time logging into many sites.
Another option is to simply clear your browser of cookies regularly. You can do that in you settings as well.
How did Google get around that?
The company put a hidden field in some of its sites that essentially acted as a form, even though the user never filled out anything. That told Safari it was OK for DoubleClick to serve ads to the unknowing, unwitting user.
Why would Google do that?
Google says it’s all an accident. Even though Google’s primary business is advertising and the Safari browser on iPhones and iPads is said to account for more than 50% of mobile browsing, Google says it was merely taking advantage of a known workaround in Safari that lets do things like use Google’s “+1″ buttons on sites outside the Google.com domain.
Come again?
Modules like the “+1″ button and the Facebook Like button appear on many different sites, and users generally expect them to work without changing their browser settings. Facebook even encourages developers to exploit the same Safari quirk Google targeted here. Google says it was only trying to enable such functionality with those hidden fields, and it “didn’t anticipate” advertising cookies to be set on Safari.
Is Google doing anything about it?
Yes, it says it’s started removing these cookies from Safari browsers.
What does Google do with the information it collected?
Until it started removing the cookies, the company used the information mainly to tailor ads based on the websites you visited. The cookie doesn’t track personal information, such as your address or phone number.
Will Google face any penalties for this?
It’s unclear. Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this might qualify. For its part, the FTC acknowledged to Mashable that it was aware of the issue, but didn’t say if it would do anything about it.
Is Google the only one doing this?
No. The original testing by Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer pointed the finger at three other companies — Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group and PointRoll — all of which exploit Safari’s quirks to serve ads to unsuspecting users.
Can Apple do anything about this “quirk?”
Apple says it’s working on a way to “put a stop” to third parties circumventing Safari’s privacy settings.
What can I do if I’m concerned about this?
To ensure that no one puts unwanted cookies on your device, simply go into your browser settings and choose the option to never accept cookies.
However, that will also mean you’ll have a hard time logging into many sites.
Another option is to simply clear your browser of cookies regularly. You can do that in you settings as well.
Friday, October 12, 2012
FB. The evolution continues.
Facebook confirms it is testing new design with search on the left and notifications on the right
October 12, 2012 - Emil Protalinski
Facebook is always moving elements around and tweaking its interface. In order to keep its look fresh, the social networking giant often tests small (comparatively to complete revamps like Timeline) changes with various subsets of its users.
One such rearrangement is moving the search bar more to the left and the three icons (Friend Requests, Messages, Notifications) all the way to the right. Inside Facebook posted the following screenshot of the top navigation bar earlier today:
We got in touch with Facebook to make sure this is indeed what it seems, and the company confirmed this is by design. “This is just a test, we have nothing more to share at this time,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Next Web.
This moves the search bar closer to the Facebook logo and pushes everything else to the right. Personally I think this is a terrible change and I hope the test fails.
It’s also worth noting that this redesign removes the “Home” link from the right corner, which is where users often click to return to the News Feed. The Facebook logo serves the same purpose, and if there’s anything that I like in changes like this one is the elimination of redundancy.
Still, if the company wants to move anything around, it should put the search bar on the right, like most sites have it, and keep everything else on the left. To play devil’s advocate with myself, however, I always thought the three icons were placed oddly on the left, but I got used to it.
Yet Facebook has shown time and time again that it really doesn’t care what its users get used to. The service will change things as it sees fit, usually for the best, and almost always resulting in a huge outcry from its users. If the company is going to double down on search, it’s going to be experimenting, whether you like it or not.
October 12, 2012 - Emil Protalinski
Facebook is always moving elements around and tweaking its interface. In order to keep its look fresh, the social networking giant often tests small (comparatively to complete revamps like Timeline) changes with various subsets of its users.
One such rearrangement is moving the search bar more to the left and the three icons (Friend Requests, Messages, Notifications) all the way to the right. Inside Facebook posted the following screenshot of the top navigation bar earlier today:
We got in touch with Facebook to make sure this is indeed what it seems, and the company confirmed this is by design. “This is just a test, we have nothing more to share at this time,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Next Web.
This moves the search bar closer to the Facebook logo and pushes everything else to the right. Personally I think this is a terrible change and I hope the test fails.
It’s also worth noting that this redesign removes the “Home” link from the right corner, which is where users often click to return to the News Feed. The Facebook logo serves the same purpose, and if there’s anything that I like in changes like this one is the elimination of redundancy.
Still, if the company wants to move anything around, it should put the search bar on the right, like most sites have it, and keep everything else on the left. To play devil’s advocate with myself, however, I always thought the three icons were placed oddly on the left, but I got used to it.
Yet Facebook has shown time and time again that it really doesn’t care what its users get used to. The service will change things as it sees fit, usually for the best, and almost always resulting in a huge outcry from its users. If the company is going to double down on search, it’s going to be experimenting, whether you like it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)