Yesterday, Google announced “SideWiki” a new feature of the Firefox and IE browsers (Chrome to come soon) that allows anyone to contribute comments about any webpage –including this one. The impacts are far reaching, now every web page on the internet is social and can have consumer opinion –both positive and negative.
Control Over the Corporate Website Is Shifting To The Customers:
- Customers trust each other more than you –now they can assert their voices “on” your webpage. Every webpage on your corporate website, intranet, and extranet are now social. Anyone who accesses these features can now rely on their friends or those who contribute to get additional information. Competitors can link to their competing product, consumers can rate or discuss the positive and negative experiences with your company or product.
- Yet, don’t expect everyone to participate –or contribute valuable content. While social technology adoption is on the rise, not everyone writes, rates, and contributes content in every location, likely those who have experienced the product, influential, or competitors will be involved. Secondly, content created in this sidebar may be generally useless. To be successful, Google will need it to look more like Wikipedia than YouTube comments
- Expect Google to integrate this feature with existing systems. Google recently launched profiles, a feature that is the foundation for extending their social reach. With large social networks like Gmail already in place (That’s right, email is a social network) they can eventually sort content on SideWiki by context of friends, experts, or other sources. Google’s strategy is to ‘envelope’ the web this is typical of their approach.
- Although early, expect other social networks to launch competing features. Facebook has already created an ‘inlay’ so you can view links shared in the Facebook newspage in the context of your friends –expect them to grow this feature out shortly.
Recommendations for the Web Strategist: Develop a Social Strategy Now
- Shift your thinking: recognize that you don’t own your corporate website –your customers do. Accept the mindshift that your job is to not only serve up product and corporate content but to also be a platform and enabler for customers to discuss, share, and make suggestions to how you should improve what you offer.
- Develop a social strategy with dedicated resources. With every webpage now potentially social, you’ll need to develop a process, roles, and policy to ensure you’re monitoring the conversation, participating as you would in blog discussions, and influencing the discussion. 80% of success is developing an internal strategy, providing education before a free-for-all happens with customers and employees.
- Don’t be reactive to negative content –embrace social content now. Give users the ability to leave social feedback directly on your corporate webpages, or aggregate existing social content. CMS vendors are developing features to enable this, as well as community platform vendors like Kickapps, Pluck, Liveworld’s Livebar offer rapid deployment options.
I predicted Google would be one of the first to do this, however I expected them to start with Chrome, not FF and IE. Expect this to be a default feature of Chrome –not just a plugin in future efforts.
Update: Just saw an interesting tweet from @prem_k about impacts to CRM. He’s Right. CRM systems (Salesforce, SAP, Oracle, Rightnow and others) will need to aggregate content in Google’s Sidewiki. It’s not just CRM, Brand Monitoring companies (Radian6, Buzzmetrics, Cymfony, Visible Technologies) will also need to “suck in” that data.
Update 2, a few hours later: We should stop to think about how competitors could display ads “on” your corporate site and you couldn’t stop it, why? Take a look at Google’s business model, they envelop and categorize the web, then display ads on it. There’s nothing stopping them from allowing advertisers to put ads on SideWiki as “sponsored” information. For example, Coke could run their latest ads on the Pepsi.com SikeWiki area. HP could run ads on the Dell.com site. This *already* happens in the search engine result pages on Google.com why not in sidewiki?
Update 3, the next day: I just tried out SideWiki to see how it works. I came to this very post and found out that there are already three comments. I left a comment welcoming folks, and it gave me the option to Tweet it, which I did. Here’s what sidewiki looks like, you don’t never have to have the plugin for this to work. Which means that this certainly has lower barriers to adoption. A few other field notes? I no longer have to fuss with captacha on blogs or name/email/url once I’m logged in to SideWiki, I can comment around the web. Secondly, it centralizes all my comments on my Google profile tool. You do see what Google is doing right? They are turning the whole web into a social network.
http://dotspots.com/#dots/all does the same
Steve, thanks. Dotspots looks interesting too.
However, they don’t have the mainstream appeal as Google –that’s where adoption can go mainstream.
Awesome. Game changer. _____ websites beware [insert discretionary attribute] – your readers can now comment, talk back and co-create for good.
Wow. Very cool. I just wish Wikipedia had come up with it. Wondering if the top three “expert opinions” will be sponsored results?
Do you think this will have any relation to Google Wave?
Wikis have such a low adoption rate, imo, so it’ll be interesting to see how long it takes for this feature to become useful, informative.
Jason, why not? Google could eventually put ads in the sidewiki space –monetizing another company’s content! Like Yahoo, MSN, and AOL. Gotta love that.
Kara, Google plans to integrate all of these experiences over time –yes, expect it to connect with their successful products. Remember, their mission is to organize, make sense, of all data.
I think this is an expected move after Google’s failed attempt to encourage people to comment on search results to improve the accuracy, relevancy and most importantly adding the people rank to content on web instead of just page/keyword ranks.
While this kind of technology gives consumers an edge in aggregating their opinions there by influencing the decisions at large extent apart from driving the search engine rankings for content on web.
However the most important thing in my opinion – If SideWiki becomes successful then Google will be less dependent on services like Twitter, Social Sharing/Ranking Sites for serving the Recent & Relevant content in search results and most importantly their search rankings will move from keywords based algorithm to people & engagement rankings so Google can stand against the growing trend of social news/sharing/ranking sites, which aggregate popular content based on people rankings, all these services are steadily increasing their user base.
Vijay. Good point, there could be limitations to who’s going to actually leave comments
It’s possible that Google could dynamically aggregate content about a website in the sidebar, they already have the relevancy engines. They could aggregate the relevant opinions about any given page in the sidebarwiki
In fact, it’s their most powerful and primary ability: search engine results pages.
I love this idea. Knowing that you will now be able to apply what you are thinking while surfing the entire web is great!
But for an article such as this? Would the comments be better in the sidewiki or just as we are commenting now?
And the “Top Experts” idea of monetizing would be great. But how do you determine who is the expert? does money talk in this situation?
Kelsi
Exactly. This website (a blog) allows commenters to directly be part of the conversation –giving the community a first chance to come here and centralize.
The impact isn’t to website that already have comments enable, it’s to those that don’t have an area for community feedback: Like most corporate websites.
Hi Jeremiah;
Re: CRM- keywords – “relevant and data”- if we want leads to manage in a sales process will they be?. I like the concept of the sidewiki, but if Google owns the engine can they be trusted to drive our leads ?
Anxious to learn more..
Craig
Sidewiki could evolve into something very interesting if we users are allowed to identify our own experts — or at least our own trusted/respected sources of comments on specific content. Tracking which comments gets the thumbs-down from viewers could filter out haters and shills, and aggregate thumbs-ups could fuel the people-powered expertise ranking Vijay notes Google sought in its failed search-results voting function.
In this scenario curators of CRM content would HAVE to be relevant and useful in order to earn/maintain expert status, while empty hype and gratuitous bashing would diminish “expertise quotient”.
For this to work, Google may have to be very clever/judicious about exposing comments to site visitors in order to compile meaningful “vote” tabulations. If there are YouTube-like deluges of comments in Sidewiki, careful “shuffling” to ensure all are seen/reacted to by a representative slice of users could be tricky. But if anyone can do the math, I bet it’s Google.
Craig. I was actually thinking that CRM isn’t just for driving leads but also customer support. Some customers may use the sidewiki to complain about products –support teams need to: 1) Be aware 2) Triage 3) Respond 4) Followup 5) Record activity.
This is much more than marketing.
Interesting article. I’m getting a bit tired of typing that. I need to work on something more original. Anyway, enough of that already.
Here we go.
1.) Is this ‘innovation’ really going to provide much to:
a.) the consumer?
b.) the content provider?
2.) What is Google really up to here and do they realise that they might become the biggest “polluter” of advertising on the internet and this may actually eventually work against them. They used to be heroes, but how long can they maintain that position for?
Very briefly, that’s me. 🙂
Jeremiah, I dropped a link in the SideWiki post I did yesterday to your excellent write up – see trackbacks. So many are discrediting this new feature on Google. Even if it’s not widely adopted, it’s writing on the wall.
To me, when consumer sentiment and brand messages have substantial misalignment, brands are going to get hurt.. visibly and dramatically.
I’m not sure if SideWiki will fly – but something like it will – sooner than most companies are prepared for.
One other thought. Sidewiki could also update content based on trackbacks. For example, if I link to a page, sidewiki could pick that up and show a summary of my thoughts on this blog.
Jeremiah-
Really interesting to read your post along with those of Jeff Jarvis, who seems to decry the publisher’s loss of control that you seem to welcome. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/09/23/google-sidewiki-danger/
Wasn’t there something awhile back where you could surf the web and see comments left behind by your social network? (e.g., your Facebook friends or your LinkedIn connections). If not, I think that would be a great option.
Thinking top point on the strategy is site owners should create a website owner’s comment (see http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=157270) which helps set the tone for users visiting the site and using the sidewiki. Encourage conversation and sharing of ideas, but to add in specific contact information for customer support issues or other areas most likely to get responded to in a quick fashion.
I am not sure I completly agree. Yes, technology can put power (quite undefined term) into the hands of the consumer and this is one more tool that can do that. However any company can and and should be able to be the dialogue leader. I also think you under play the power and possibilities of a dynamic company website and a dynamic company communication department. I am pretty sure I can create a coporate website that will engagne consumers better than the wiki. Maybe not all of them but the largest share.
If there is a loss of power its from the readyness to match new communication channels especailly blocked by outdated coporate strucktures and communication culture.
I have seen and continue to see a genuine lack of experience and knowledge in how geared companies are actually geared towards becoming what the tome thumping social media advocates want them to become. Marketing and other departments need to change and this is going to take time and money. Considering the economic climate, unlimited change, like unlimited power is without doubt a bad thing. Nobody seems to click to this concept thoigh.
IMO this only becomes a big deal in proportion to how widely adopted it becomes. There are a lot of Google Tool Bar users, but how well will Google get their users to take the time to use SideWiki?
Interesting stuff.
I’ve just noticed that it is easy to post a sidewiki message to an intranet page, or other secure site. The comment, and the link shows up on your public google profile. If the average user isn’t paying attention to the small-print, this could get a lot of workers into a lot of trouble, a lot quicker than posting comments to your facebook profile.
If SideWiki gets adoption, it may change not only our way to interact with brands, but our whole behavior while surfing the Net. For instance, will commenting a blog post still be relevant? I already see two external comments for this post. Sentiment, information and conversation won’t be in customers hands, but in Google’s ones.
The real battle is no more about content, but about context. Since you can also annotate any FB profile or fan page, let us see how Facebook will react…
Thierry
I dislike it intensely, for a couple of reasons:
1) there is no way for the content owner to control what gets said. I have a post that ranks well for certain keywords related to Judaism and ever since then I’ve had to deal with anti-Semitic trolls attacking that page. I solve the problem by deleting their comments. Now, the trolls will be able to post their crap in Sidewiki and I won’t be able to do anything about it.
2) Sidewiki also gives Google the opportunity to layer advertising on content regardless of whether the content owner consents to this or not. And of course the content owner receives none of the revenue.
I’m not sure if Sidewiki will actually go anywhere — Knol is a big fail — but if it does these are going to become non-trivial issues over time.
Did you just say that GOOG is shifting power away from corporate websites? 😉
Rachel
1) Yes, control is a myth. There are overlay systems already. Have you ever seen what folks said about your website in delicious? Digg? or other bookmarking services?
2) I just spoke with Charlene, she told me someone tried to “Frame” content from the NYT and put ads on it –NYT pushed back with legal and they stopped. Some copywrited material may be able to be stopped from this.
This sort of thing has been done since the 90’s. The key difference is this time it’s Google. This should serve notice to corporations who’ve been afraid of negative feedback that they are better off diving into customer interaction instead of diving their heads into the sand. Or at least one would hope.
I think this is a fantastic concept in principle but I can sympathise with site owners who will no doubt feel very concerned about the perceived loss of control over ‘their’ website. Yes, people can freely talk about your website/product/service on bookmarking and networking sites (or in person for that matter) but someone looking to buy widgets may not actually find your website via Digg or Twitter. Comments left on sidewiki will be highly visible without requiring any significant level of viral support. Do the associated risks make this a step too soon for brands who are unable (or not sufficiently aware) to resource a social strategy?
Jeremiah
I just tried to put a Sidewiki comment on Yahoo home page. I was excited that hey I can be on Yahoo home page. But when I log out of my Google account, I went back to Yahoo home page, my comment is not visible. It is only visible when I am logged in to my Google account. Do you know is there any filtering process for placing contents on SideWiki? Or my Sidewiki comments are only visible to me when I am logging in to Google?
This is a big, big deal. Product launches, rumors of problems with products, internal problems, losing sales, employee defections — it is all going to be here. CRM, PR and marcom are going to become much closer functions. This will force the change that was already coming.
Thanks Jeremiah for another compelling and stimulating piece.
I get your point about control being a myth. What I’m trying to wrap my head around is the implication for environments which traditionally require some controls – or more particularly are themselves ‘controlled’ sectors due to government regulation i.e. pharma and gov (esp. in Europe). It calls for a radical rethink on 2-way engagement, which is of course not a bad thing. There is a already lot of catch-up happening at the moment in these areas, but I can already see opportunities for automatically detecting/handling something like adverse events in SideWiki comments if the concept went mainstream.
I wonder if Google will have to have/create/evolve a policy about whether it won’t display on some sites, in the same way that there are restrictions about the use pharma PPC? Definitely a game-changer in any case.
That it is a toolbar will for now restrict mass adoption, but when it is built-in to browsers following piloting (assuming successful uptake) – that’s when it will really get interesting. At least as you say we’ve now seen the future, time to start planning.
I really have to say that this whole thing really concerns me. It hijacks the content, overshadows the concept of a site, competes with sites’ existing commenting, and disrupts the experience of a site like someone who can’t shut up in a movie theater. Not everything is intended to have a peanut gallery attached. People are always free to discuss a site in their own webspace, but this is imposing into someone else’s inherent experience and on a scale that google obviously cannot control. i think that we will see every site so littered with spam and offensive or immature remarks that everyone will have to get the stupid toolbar installed just to police their own site– and still have to ASK google to remove things. Not every website is some corporation trying to sell something, so this isn’t about empowering a consumer. This is about google empowering google. I realize that it is not a new idea, but the scale and integration involved are seemingly irresponsible and careless on google’s part.
Rich thanks, I understand your concerns.
The good news is you don’t have to enable the feature. Unfortunately, brands cannot ignore these conversations in the next ‘plane’.
Yes, Google wins no matter what in these scenarios –unless no one adopts it.
I was hoping ShiftSpace.Org would become the norm for web annotation, but at least this way google can introduce the idea to the main stream and people who want to augment without googles controll can move to the liberal open source option. I feel we are heading toward a world we can annotate the entire web and eventually our entire reality. This is what we all do in our own heads anyway, currently we are developing and learning new ways to express it. I just hope the platforms adopted by the public demand the freedom to be able to express their full freedom of opinion and speech. Cheers.
I really like the combination of the commenting and sharing function. It makes it very easy to email, tweet or add to facebook from the same interface all of the time. Then all aggregated comments and page links are part of a google profile.
I don’t agree that this isn’t important for blogs. Right now a blogger may moderate comments on a blog, require registration before commenting, or close comments for an entry. Sidewiki takes control of the discussion away from the blogger, too.
Do you know if Google will let site owners remove abusive comments?
Overall, fascinating.
this space is a game changer in my view.. interesting how dotspots and sidewiki came out around the same time.
Very interesting. I love how social content isn’t just starting from zero now as user-generated; we’re backtracking and social-izing the content that was less conversational in the first place by bolting on ways to make it so. I’m encouraged by the possibilities, though I can already here the sharp intakes of breath from the companies that are already nervous about what’s being said about them online. 🙂
You can bet we’re paying attention…thanks for the mention.
Best.
Amber Naslund
Director of Community, Radian6
@ambercadabra
Amber, I know you’re paying attention. What will be interesting is to see how legacy CMS systems decide to respond.
Jeremiah – your post and internal notes about this development where flying across my inbox at the same time. Appreciate the mention and is certainly on the radar screen for our dev’s.
Cheers,
@bcahill
@visible_tech
SideWiki is a great idea. More users and businesses are leaning towards social marketing and media. At least the smart ones are.
Great post. Seems like the pervasive wiki idea is definitely a sword that cuts both ways. I got interested in DotSpots after seeing the first comment and talked to the CEO, Farhad Mohit (founder Shopzilla). He said DotSpots is really more geared toward a citizen journalist/activist/blogger audience. Rather than looking to spread wiki technology over the whole web, he is just looking for a few thousand members to provide social media content media providers like CNN, NYT, etc. There is not a business model yet, but the idea is providing simple plug and play adoption of social media for media providers, which will drive people to stay longer on their sites and raise ad effectiveness. If anyone wants to hear the interview it’s at http://www.wesconard.com
chees,
W
So is this Googles attempt to use Social Media as part of the ranking algo?
It seems like the commenting features of sidewiki duplicate features of platforms like Disqus (http://disqus.com) which is great for aggregating comments across the web. I’d prefer to see google do something more along the lines of disqus, but link it more closely with search results, email, google reader, etc.
I think the physical format of having comments below an article rather than along side it just makes more sense, so if google adds the ability for blogs to incorporate side wiki within a page, even if they can’t control the content, just to use it as a comment system, it will be a greater win for publishers.
Even if adoption for this picks up, which I don’t think it will, there will be a major problem of filtering. Useless comments, shameless plugs for other sites, or worse hateful messages would drastically bring down the usefulness of this product. The idea is great, but google can’t assume that everyone on the internet is as “googly” as they are.
Perhaps the end answer is that side wiki should only be used with corporate sites? But wouldn’t that kill adoption? How can this product spread virally when users who don’t have it enabled can’t view messages on it?
For reasons obvious to any Corporate Website Manager, this is definitely a development in the wrong direction. There has to be a way one needs to be control of the content they have created. This could also have negative repercussions on a Company’s Brand Image if someone (eg: disgruntled employees)decide to go on offensive. I think Google must find a way to counter these issues otherwise Corporates will be forced to use massive resources to counteract negative actions.
It’s a revolutionary development. Businesses have no choice but to listen to their customers. However, may concern is that they may try to influence and manipulate the discussions on their SideWiki
I wonder how Google will treat the incoming links in terms of optimisation and page rank
If the company won’t bring the blog to their customers, Google seems to bring it for you/them. Kind of a cool idea, but I wonder if we want to make Google even more powerful. It is their tool so it seems they can do it.
I think this is fantastic – someone had to do it without iframes.
There are some slightly delusional comments on this topic (here and especially elsewhere). Anyone who wishes to have absolute control over content displayed on a visitor’s screen should stick to television. The internet is valuable as a communications medium precisely because it is bi-directional.
If this takes off, it’s because people find this added layer of communication to be valuable. That, in and of itself, is reason enough for brands/sites/communities to embrace it, or similar technology.
Sidewiki does creep me out a bit from a privacy perspective. Though I suppose anyone who has the Google Toolbar installed (or, for that matter, has any URL suggestions service turned on in their browser) has already chosen to share their browsing behavior.
Wow, what a great feature. This will probably put a stop to a lot of scams.
This is very interesting, and could be a game-changer. But like some of you here, I wonder about adoption and usefulness. Commenting is only useful when a broad range of people can access, digest and contribute to an ongoing conversation (does a tree falling in the forest…). From a brand perspective, commenting is only useful when brands can understand what is being said and respond. If a page has a place for comments – is there a need for sidewiki?
I guess one result is this could motivate brand to install commenting on their side to give their consumers a voice…because Google has already provided an alternative.
This is a fascinating development. Thanks for the post and updates. I can see why so many are getting excited about how this may further the social revolution, or at the very least intrigued (I know I am).
But, like a few others who have posted concerns, I have some misgivings about this development. Seems to me that some rights should be reserved for the site owner to have some degree of control on his/her site. A lot of time and effort goes into the planning, development, execution and maintenance of a site that is intended to serve a designed purpose. Free access to comment in “sidebars” may distract, or even obstruct, a site owner from pursuing that purpose.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m all in favor of consumer power, engagement practices, listening, et al. I also see a lot of value for companies who learn to utilize the social technologies to listen, understand, and take action on the feedback and learning they get from the community. It’s where we are and we are not going back.
But, while I’m a free speech advocate, there’s that Supreme Court ruling that says the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater. There are lots of people with major impulse-control or maturity issues out there who would have the chance to do the movie theater “fire!” shout equivalent on any site. A few malicious miscreants could essentially “hijack” an “innocent” site, company or cause. They could lie, damage reputations (of people and companies)…and probably a lot of things I can even think of. Call me old-fashioned, but that does not seem right.
I’d like to know more about the controls and safeguards against this sort of “site hijacking” and other potential malicious abuses. Hopefully there’s been some thought put into this. If Google’s mission really includes to “do no evil,” then they need to be looking at this long and hard…unless that “do no evil” thing is a bunch of PR hooey.
Having expressed concerns, I’m hopeful that there are some safeguards and that this tool is one that can be used by consumers to properly comment and by companies to effectively listen, learn and respond. No matter what, one thing is clear: it’s time to start game-planning for this, if you haven’t already.
Jeremiah, congrats on a great post with solid advice. I wrote a post on our blog using yours as a foundation but took on the theme of why I think Sidewiki will fail. Why doesn’t Google take an approach of starting to index and provide data on social media content related to search results before they try to become a source of social media content? I’m thinking the next Google home page should be a cross between Digg, SEO Tools for Firefox, and the existing home page. Sidewiki is a couple of steps beyond that.
Anyway, thanks for the good post. Would be interested in your opinion as to whether you think Sidewiki will be wildly successful.
Jeremiah,
1) I disagree. Control is not a myth. I don't particularly care what the heck people are saying elsewhere, unless it is slanderous. However, it's outrageous that I could be spammed and slandered on my own website, not to mention that advertisements could be placed there as well! C'mon, Google has crossed the line big time. I built the site. I pay for the hosting and the domain. I should be able to control what appears there.
2) Congratulations to the NYT!
Google is now Big Brother, yet many of you here seem not to care? You are so tied into the social web that you wear blinders. You seem to think there should be no privacy, and no right to website control.
Jeremiah,
1) I disagree. Control is not a myth. I don't particularly care what the heck people are saying elsewhere, unless it is slanderous. However, it's outrageous that I could be spammed and slandered on my own website, not to mention that advertisements could be placed there as well! C'mon, Google has crossed the line big time. I built the site. I pay for the hosting and the domain. I should be able to control what appears there.
2) Congratulations to the NYT!
Google is now Big Brother, yet many of you here seem not to care? You are so tied into the social web that you wear blinders. You seem to think there should be no privacy, and no right to website control.
Jeremiah,
1) I disagree. Control is not a myth. I don't particularly care what the heck people are saying elsewhere, unless it is slanderous. However, it's outrageous that I could be spammed and slandered on my own website, not to mention that advertisements could be placed there as well! C'mon, Google has crossed the line big time. I built the site. I pay for the hosting and the domain. I should be able to control what appears there.
2) Congratulations to the NYT!
Google is now Big Brother, yet many of you here seem not to care? You are so tied into the social web that you wear blinders. You seem to think there should be no privacy, and no right to website control.
Jeremiah,
1) I disagree. Control is not a myth. I don't particularly care what the heck people are saying elsewhere, unless it is slanderous. However, it's outrageous that I could be spammed and slandered on my own website, not to mention that advertisements could be placed there as well! C'mon, Google has crossed the line big time. I built the site. I pay for the hosting and the domain. I should be able to control what appears there.
2) Congratulations to the NYT!
Google is now Big Brother, yet many of you here seem not to care? You are so tied into the social web that you wear blinders. You seem to think there should be no privacy, and no right to website control.
Sidewiki – Crabzy – same but less powerfull.
I believe Sidewiki is nothing more than what offers Crabzy, and even less because Crabzy offers forum's functionalities, where you can have dialogs, exchanges between users.
I'd rather go to Crabzy.com, but they both offer great value as this kind of service, if more developped, could really enrich the Web !!!!
For everyone's benefit !!!!
Sidewiki – Crabzy – same but less powerfull.
I believe Sidewiki is nothing more than what offers Crabzy, and even less because Crabzy offers forum's functionalities, where you can have dialogs, exchanges between users.
I'd rather go to Crabzy.com, but they both offer great value as this kind of service, if more developped, could really enrich the Web !!!!
For everyone's benefit !!!!
I personally don't like the idea. Now a days, there are so many people out there that will post things/lies just to make your website look bad. Don't these people have anything better to do, then to cause havoc for other people that want to succeed?
sports shoes
Nike Sport Shoes
Women's Nike Sport Shoes
Men's Nike Sport Shoes
Con grates!
I personally don't like the idea. Now a days, there are so many people out there that will post things/lies just to make your website look bad. Don't these people have anything better to do, then to cause havoc for other people that want to succeed.
Thank u for this web.
Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really reasonable and you guy give us valuable informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good information we can learn in this forum!
Browsing on Google for something else closely connected, regardless before i ramble on too much i would just like to state how much I cherished your post, I've added your web blog and also obtained your Feed, Again thank you very much for the article carry on the good work.
However, they don't have the mainstream appeal as Google –that's where adoption can go mainstream.
Ä°mkander
This is very, very interesting information¦
Thanks
Regards
gfff