How to Repair Broken Hyperlinks

While working on a web, you should occasionally check to see if the web has broken hyperlinks and if it does, repair them. A broken hyperlink is one that has an invalid destination URL and will return an error if the site visitor clicks the hyperlink.

A hyperlink might have an invalid URL for various reasons; you might have mistyped it, or, if the destination page is on another World Wide Web site, the page might have been changed or removed.

1. On the View menu, point to Reports, and then click Broken Hyperlinks.
   All broken hyperlinks in the web are listed. If a hyperlink's destination is not in the current web, the status of the hyperlink is Unknown.
2. First click on In Page. By doing this FrontPage will sort all files by folders in alphabetical order. Select the files, you are assigned to and right-click on the selection.
   You will get pop-up menu ( see picture below ) and select Verify.  The Status will be changed to Broken orOK.  
3. Right-click a hyperlink with Broken status.
4. To display the page to edit it, click Edit Hyperlink.

   

1. If you know the correct URL of the destination, edit it in the Replace hyperlink with box. Or, click Browseto browse to the page or file in a web, file system, or World Wide Web.
2. To repair other occurrences of this hyperlink in all pages in the current web, click Change in all pages.
3. To repair other occurrences of this hyperlink in selected pages, click Change in selected pages, and then select the pages.
4. Click Replace.
5. If you want to edit the hyperlink on the page itself, click Edit Page button and FrontPage will display the page for you with the broken hyperlink  being already highlighted for you.

If the hyperlink's destination is not in the current web, the status of the hyperlink changes to Unknown. If the destination is valid, the hyperlink is no longer displayed in the Broken Hyperlinks report.

Tweet

Meet Facebook's Atlas: The platform for advertisers to track your movements

Atlas, Facebook's advertising platform, is now open for business following an overhaul from the ground up.

First acquired from Microsoft last year by the social media giant, Atlas was reportedly in the middle of a revamp following Facebook's acquisition. However, it seems the platform has been completely rewritten for use on the social media website, according to a company blog post .

The company said Atlas has been rebuilt "from the ground up" to cater for today's marketing needs, such as "reaching people across devices and bridging the gap between online impressions and offline purchases."

"Atlas delivers people-based marketing, helping marketers reach real people across devices, platforms and publishers," Atlas says. "By doing this, marketers can easily solve the cross-device problem through targeting, serving and measuring across devices. And, Atlas can now connect online campaigns to actual offline sales, ultimately proving the real impact that digital campaigns have in driving incremental reach and new sales."

Advertisers often have to rely on cookies to track advert interactions, and as people spend more time than ever on their devices -- shopping, comparing and researching -- mobility had led to a shift in consumer behavior and purchase decisions. While 10 years ago you may have stayed local when shopping, for example, the Internet has led to increased competition and wider consumer choice.

The problem is closing the gap between devices and purchase decisions -- as cookies do not work well on mobile. As a result, demographics, data collection, advert targeting and measuring have all become less accurate than before. This leaves marketers at a disadvantage in a changing commercial world. 

In order to solve this issue, Facebook wants to use what Atlas calls "people-based marketing." According to reports, the social media giant will be able to use Atlas' new code base to 'anonymously' track individuals across a range of devices. As an example, a purchase made on a PC could be traced back to an ad impression from a smartphone or tablet.

In addition, adverts generated from Atlas partners can be tailored across other websites depending on the data Facebook has on a group of users -- such as age, sex and location. 

Tweet

Why BitTorrent Could Be the Future of Buying Music

BitTorrent: It's how you get movies and music for free. That's what most people think. But if the musicians and filmmakers who are losing to pirates want to survive, they're going to have to give BitTorrent a big hug.

Torrent this album

Today, Thom Yorke became the first artist to start selling his music using BitTorrent by offering his new album Tomorrow's Modern Boxes for download as a $6 BitTorrent bundle. Launched last year as an experimental project, BitTorrent Bundles are basically artist-sanctioned packages of multimedia files you download over the BitTorrent protocol exactly as you do anything else.

Some huge names like Moby and De La Soul have already used the service to distribute exclusive content in support of paid releases available elsewhere. Generally, this content was hidden behind a "gate," which you could only get past by giving up your email address. Yorke's record is the first to make use of a "paygate," which actually charges money. And he's putting his whole album behind it.

This isn't the first time Yorke has gone for novel distribution. Eight years ago, Yorke's band Radiohead launched its record In Rainbows as a pay-what-you-want download to astonishing success. Before its physical release, In Rainbows generated more money than the entirety of the band's Hail to the Thief. Some paid for the download and others bought a deluxe box set that was available. But plenty of people downloaded it without paying a cent.

Today's Yorke release is something of an evolution of that first experiment, one that takes years of digital sea-changes into account. In a message posted today, Yorke wonders if people will actually use the platform, and perhaps more importantly, if it can't be a legitimate source of income for artists. This isn't a sure thing, but it's an important test.

It's an experiment to see if the mechanics of the system are something that the general public can get its head around. If it works well it could be an effective way of handing some control of internet commerce back to people who are creating the work. Enabling those people who make either music, video or any other kind of digital content to sell it themselves.

Indeed, the pricing model makes a lot more sense for creators. BitTorrent takes a 10 percent cut whereas iTunes and others can be as much as 40 percent. That's a huge difference.

We don't have any hard numbers on how well Thom Yorke's record is doing. Presumably, it will move units, because, you know, he's Thom Yorke. A smaller or unknown artist might not fare so well actually selling units, but that doesn't mean that Bundles, and more broadly, BitTorrent can't be of use to them.

It's only the beginning

Earlier this year BitTorrent announced that the free bundle promoting Moby's latest albumInnocents, had been downloaded some 9 million times. From there, 150,000 people clicked through to the album on iTunes. Though unfortunately BitTorrent told me they don't know how many of those clickthroughs bought anything.

Without that last number, it's hard to say if BitTorrent is actually generating money, but it's safe to assume it's driving some sales, which is pretty remarkable given that these people all use BitTorrent. They all have it set up. To just pirate instead would be a trivial decision.

And in that way, today's Yorke bundle is something of an immediate contradiction. Right now, just hours after the announcement, you can get the Tomorrow's Modern Boxes on BitTorrent for free in the form of a pirated torrent. Because while some people will chose paying over piracy, others will always turn and re-upload that music right off the bat.

But BitTorrent Bundles are not about stopping piracy. They're about bring the sale of music closer to the source, and maybe helping them make some money. BitTorrent has 40 million users a day, and that's a tremendous opportunity, even if BitTorrent (the company) is still figuring out the mechanics of how it came become a platform for legitimate distribution.

And not everyone needs to come right out and sell like Yorke, there can be stages to the delivery. Maybe you give away some exclusive content, and later offer a sale, or maybe the exclusive content is just a portal to other experiences. A few months ago, company VP Matt Mason insisted to me that BitTorrent bundles are adaptable to whatever monetization platform content creators ultimately land on—be it iTunes, Spotify, or something else like selling concert tickets.

BitTorrent costs artists less and gives them more options than other options like iTunes, in part because it is so cheap to operate. Downloaders—pirates and legitimate users alike—for the backbone of BitTorrent's network. That's what makes BitTorrent so nimble, and flexible in the ways it can try to attract paying customers, or even convert pirates into them. There's room to experiment and if the early success of bundles is any indication, there's a lot of opportunity in those 40 million users, even if millions of them only showed up for free music in the first place.

This doesn't mean iTunes and the middlemen will cease to exist. But as we keep rolling into a digital world where paying customers are harder to find, what we all need are more options to let them pay. And BitTorrent is just that.

Tweet

Google study heightens fund industry fears

Google has commissioned research on how it could enter the asset management industry, adding weight to widespread fears in the fund sector that the world’s biggest internet companies could destroy the livelihoods of established fund houses.

Google asked a financial services research firm, which has a record of helping large companies tackle new markets, to assess how to enter asset management two years ago. The research firm cannot be named for confidentiality reasons.

Although Google has not made a concrete move towards asset management since the study, its interest in the sector is likely to alarm large fund groups that are already struggling to keep up with new technology.

A senior executive at a large US fund company told FTfm in April that its “biggest fear” was Google deciding to enter the fund management sector.

At an FT conference in London earlier this month, Graham Kellen, head of technology at Schroders, one of Europe’s largest listed fund houses, said: “Obviously this is something we as an institution are concerned about [and] continue to monitor.” The likelihood of Google or Facebook entering the market was frequently discussed as a “real threat” at a senior level within Barclays Wealth & Investment Management, according to a former executive at the bank.

Google has already displayed a keen interest in becoming more than just a search engine. Its venture capital arm has invested in more than 189 companies including Uber, a taxi app, and Kensho, a financial analytics firm. Google also invests in more conventional financial assets such as government bonds. In 2010 the internet group launched a California-headquartered trading operation, which also has a bank-style trading floor, to manage its cash pile better.

But Campbell Fleming, chief executive of UK fund house Threadneedle, asked how easily large internet groups would be able to penetrate the fund market. “Google would find the fund management market more difficult than it thinks. There are significant barriers to entry and it’s not something you could get into overnight,” he said.

Catherine Tillotson, managing partner at Scorpio Partnership, a wealth management consultancy, agreed that regulatory oversight, as well as investor demands, would present a significant hurdle. She said: “Entering a highly regulated industry is not something you do lightly. If Google wanted to do it, of course they could, but they have chosen not to so far. There probably is a subsection of investors who would have confidence in Google, but I think the vast majority of investors want a relationship with an entity which can supply them with high quality information, market knowledge and a view on that market. I think it is unlikely they would turn to Google for those qualities.”

Mr Fleming conceded, however, that Google might have more luck in persuading retail investors to buy funds where established groups have failed. “A lot of these companies have better brand loyalty and are trusted more than many financial services companies. I can see [Google] going ahead given their customer reach and how pervasive they are.”

A PwC report in January concluded that fund managers’ failure to keep up with technological change will create opportunities for groups like Apple, Twitter and Amazon to break into the market.

Big internet groups branching into fund management could also present opportunities for the incumbents, according to David Stevenson, head of business development at Baring Asset Management.

“Google or Facebook could make a lot of money by distributing other peoples’ funds. As a product manufacturer, that’s a very exciting opportunity. Would I buy a Google fund? No. But would I buy a fund distributed by Google? Absolutely.”

Tweet