Poising queries to our online social networks is nothing new. When we need a restaurant recommendation or an opinion about a drainage pipe, we turn to those we know and deem more trustworthy than a soulless machine for their opinions.

Questions like:

“Attention Winos… Need recommendation on Light Wine?”

“Can I use this brow gel as clear mascara, too?“

A new survey conducted by MIT and Microsoft Research asked a sample set of social media users on the kinds of questions they tend to post online. Here were the results:

The core of social media, and it’s true power, lies in its ability to bring us all together. Our voices are amplified to those who want to hear us speak. We’re more connected, more collaborative and more useful as citizens in an ever-shrinking world.

Search companies like Google are advancing the way their technologies approach the semantic web. While the concept isn’t new, innovations in the way we compile this information will allow the user to one day more quickly find useful and trusted answers to their stupid questions.

If you’re a fan of face-slapping and talking babies, you may have been pleasantly surprised by the Super Bowl ads this year. Here are some winners, according to online commenters.

On Fanhouse’s Super Bowl Ads recap site, Doritos’ “Play Nice” scored highly with the most comments from viewers. While most ads averaged around 35 comments each, the tough little kid managed to inspire over 460 posts.

Seeing Betty White get rough may have been what got Snickers’ ad on so many top commercials lists online, including a list published by PC World. Personally, I think it’s Abe Vigoda’s Midas touch.

According to BNET, businesses paid approximately $3 million for every 30 seconds of ad time. Viewership has also increased since the first Super Bowl in 1966, increasing from a scant 2.4 million viewers to over 90 million today.

Compare the current cost figure with the $0.5 million per 30 seconds pricetag from 1984, when Ridley Scott’s Apple spot, widely regarded as one of the top Super Bowl ads of all time, appeared:

We’ve come a long way since the Blade Runner era ended.

In a recent Apple Town Hall company meeting, Steve Jobs reportedly lashed out at Google for its aggressive competitive behavior in the past year. An article today in Mashable quoted some of his alleged statements:

When it comes to Google, Jobs is mad at them for trying to “kill the iPhone.” “We did not enter the search business,” he said. “They entered the phone business. Make no mistake: they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them.” Finally, his most interesting quote is about Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra. According to Daring Fireball, Jobs simply said: “It’s a load of crap.”

For the past year, Google’s Android handsets have been the iPhone’s greatest threat, with the word “threat” being a matter of perspective. But a threat is still a threat, and while the rivalry is nothing new, it’s certainly growing. A recent article in BusinessWeek points to the rising tensions between the two giants:

Now the companies have entered a new, more adversarial phase. With Nexus One, Google, which had been content to power multiple phonemakers’ devices with Android, enters the hardware game, becoming a direct threat to the iPhone. With its Quattro purchase, Apple aims to create completely new kinds of mobile ads, say three sources familiar with Apple’s thinking. The goal isn’t so much to compete with Google in search as to make search on mobile phones obsolete. “Apple and Google both want more,” says Chris Cunningham, founder of the New York mobile advertising firm Appssavvy. “They’re gearing up for the ultimate fight.”

Here’s a great “big picture” breakdown from Nick Bilton of New York Times Bit Blog:

While Apple succeeds in creating nifty hardware, Google holds strong domination over the information segment. How strong? Apparently strong enough to bring the fat exec and Justin Long together, as word on the Segway states that Bing may oust Google as the default search engine on the iPad. Alexander Vaughn, a blogger for AppAdvice, commented on this news:

If BusinessWeek is right on this one, we might be witnessing soon the next stage of the “Apple vs Microsoft” to “Apple vs Google” paradigm shift. Indeed, according to people “familiar with the matter who asked not to be named” (classical), Apple would be in talks with Microsoft to replace Google by Bing as the iPhone’s default search engine. It’s rumored not to be exclusive and users would still have the possibility to select Google if it suits them more. On the other hand we all know that users tend to usually stick with what they get. It would make sense, in the mobile market at least, Apple’s real rival is Google and its Android, not really Microsoft. Furthermore Apple hasn’t been reluctant to collaborate with Microsoft in the past, think of the iPhone’s Exchange support. While I don’t think we should get concerned that our iPhone will get stripped of Youtube or Gmail any time soon, the Apple-Google battle is definitely heating up.

It appears Microsoft has become the old man on the side. This is especially true as Google just released a mock-up for their very own tablet. The heat is on.

A recent TechCrunch article analyzed the actual increase in Twitter usage over 2009. While use on Twitter.com itself remained relatively flat, usage of third-party sites and applications utilizing the Twitter API had grown significantly:

For example, the rate at which bit.ly links are being clicked on is growing at a steep ramp, with more than 500 million clicks (or bit.ly “decodes”) per week. [John Borthwick, betaworks/bit.ly CEO] writes that “last week was the largest week ever for clicks on bit.ly links. 564m were clicked on in total. On the Jan 6th there were a record of 98m decodes.” On January 8, 2009, TweetDeck surpassed 4 million updates in a single day. And Twitterfeed now supports more than 800,000 feeds from more than 400,000 publishers.

Throughout human history, technology has made living more convenient. But it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that the influx of innovation permeated every facet of everyday life. This phenomenon is as relevant now as it was then, with Twitter-related technologies tracking and describing our very movements.

For example, the recent announcement of the Yelp.com iPhone upgrade allowing for location check-ins was widely discussed over the past few days. While tech bloggers discussed its direct threat to Foursquare, another popular location check-in application for the iPhone, one couldn’t help but wonder how the market became so saturated with just this one type of service (we still have Loopt, Gowalla for Android users, and already bade farewell to Google’s Dodgeball earlier last year).

It’s valuable market data that consumers are more than willing to freely provide. And this is just a small segment of the vast network of Twitter-related technologies available. Businesses (and friends) are now more able to track a number of our explicit preferences in realtime. Hopefully this proliferation of personal information means they’re listening, and more willing to provide relevant products and services.

No one’s really sure why Yelp denied Google‘s half billion dollar bid, but the rumor on the street is a bigger baller came into town and dropped more on Jeremy‘s dining room table.

(UPDATE: San Francisco Examiner (12/22) – Apparently Google declined the deal because “Yelp wasn’t being transparent during discussions.”)

From TechCrunch:

The deal was, as we wrote late last week, in the later stages of negotiation. The two companies had agreed on a price – around $550 million plus earnouts – and were working through the final details of the acquisition.

Then something happened that made Yelp reconsider the deal. Over the weekend they notified Google that they were not going to sell, say multiple sources.

Many rightfully queried if the Google acquisition of Yelp would kill the Yelp Elite community. Does Google have as good a track record for stimulating the masses as it does in developing the platforms on which such stimulation could occur? Take a look at Blogger or Jaiku. While both offer robust technologies for content creation and sharing, neither offers the strong communal bonds that Yelp has encouraged. In other words, Google makes great toys but it won’t guide you in the game room.

From Gizmodo:

No word yet on exactly what drove Yelp to back down, but there are really just two main possibilities here:

• Yelp was uneasy with whatever Google’s plans for their company were. Given that Google already has a Yelp-like service in Google Places, there was a good chance that their plans would’ve involved cannibalizing Yelp for review data, or at least subordinating the brand for something more Googly.

• Yelp got a better offer, or at least the sense that they could get a better offer. Not that many tech companies could offer more than $550m for something as ephemeral and low-revenue as Yelp, but of the ones that could, nearly all—Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Aol—are locked in one war or another with Google. Even if their plans were never firm, there are a lot of powerful companies with a vested interest in Google’s local reviews staying somewhat lame.

So who else could it be? Hopefully not Microsoft. If Google got the collective Yelper long johns in a bunch, just imagine the fear generated in the village if Microsoft placed a secret bid. There’s still the possibility that Yelp is holding out, expanding to gain more value as it enters new cities and markets. Last Saturday, Honolulu had their first Yelp Hawaii Elite Event. That should add a few more dollars and cents to any future bids.

From Yelp Talk:

Does this mean http://Gelp.com will be worth money?

Now what kind of site would Gelp be?