Modest Woman: Social Network

Showing posts with label Social Network. Show all posts

Facebook grabs bigger slice of display ad pie

Facebook grabs bigger slice of display ad pie – Facebook, the world's No. 1 Internet social network, is proving as popular among advertisers as it is among Web surfers.

Nearly one of every four graphical, online display ads viewed in the United States in the third quarter was on Facebook's website, according to a new report by Web analytics firm comScore.

Facebook's 23.1 percent share of display ad impressions was up sharply from 17.7 percent in the second quarter and more than double the No. 2 ranked company, Yahoo Inc, which had 11 percent share.

In fact, Facebook's website racked-up more ad impressions in the third quarter than the next four companies combined, which includes Yahoo, Microsoft Corp, News Corp's Fox Interactive Media and Google Inc, according to comScore.

Analysts note that Facebook ads sell at a significant discount to display ads sold on traditional Web portals such as Yahoo. According to Evercore Partners analyst Ken Sena's estimates, the effective CPM (cost per thousand impressions) for Facebook's U.S. display ads is roughly $1, compared with the $3 CPM for display ads on Yahoo's family of websites in the United States.

But Sena notes that Facebook's ad rates are on the rise, as marketers make increasing use of the ability to target ads to Facebook users based on their interests and other information.

"It certainly is an issue for the portal sites," he said.

"While you still have the sort of traditional display players benefiting from strong growth trends in display (advertising), social is probably taking a disproportionate share of that growth."

The U.S. online display ad market is expected to grow roughly 13 percent to $8.56 billion in 2010, according to eMarketer, a digital market research firm. Yahoo is expected to remain the No. 1 seller of display ads by revenue this year, with 15.4 percent share of the market, according to eMarketer, with Facebook in second place with a 9.5 percent share.

Privately held Facebook, which counts more than 500 million users, does not disclose its financial results. Two people familiar with the matter told Reuters in June that the company generated up to $800 million in revenue in 2009.

Facebook delivered 297 billion impressions of display ads in the United States in the third quarter, according to comScore. The comScore data includes various types of graphical Web ads, but does not include video ads.

ComScore's Andrew Lipsman said that Facebook's increasing share of the display ad market probably resulted from the company's fast-growing audience size, an increase in the number of ads per page that Facebook delivers and an increase in the amount of time that users spend on its website.

According to comScore, users spent an average of five hours per month on Facebook during the third quarter, compared with three hours per month in the third quarter of 2009.

"The more people in your social network that are online, the more value it creates to you as a user, the more you are likely to engage and contribute," said comScore's Lipsman. ( Reuters )

If celebrities insist on using their fame to bring awareness to health problems

Doc Hollywood. If celebrities insist on using their fame to bring awareness to health problems, they should follow these guidelines. Cancer has a cure. That breakthrough medical news is not the result of grueling medical research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, it is brought to us via fading actress-cum-Thighmaster queen-cum-New Age health guru Suzanne Somers. In her new book, Knockout: Interviews With Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer and How To Prevent Getting It in the First Place, Somers claims, "There are doctors out there who are curing cancer," contrasting her findings with the "debilitating, often deadly fraud" of mainstream medicine that wants "to keep cancer alive and well" since it's "big business" for doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

Suzanne Somers

While many surely see Somers as a quackadoo, more than a few may see her as a pioneer: Upon its release, Knockout became a New York Times best-seller and ranked No. 284 in sales on Amazon. Not bad for a fading actress-cum-Thighmaster queen-cum-New Age health guru.

Somers is just the latest in storied history of stars who have shone a spotlight on medicine. The list includes fellow celebrities Christopher Reeve (spinal cord injury) and Farrah Fawcett (anal cancer), as well as famous athletes like Magic Johnson (HIV) and Lance Armstrong (testicular cancer). For them, and countless other celebrities who have dished about disease, the public has been, and remains, a keen and attentive audience.

There are many reasons celebrity health stories resonate with us. Since they always seem to be in front of us—on TV, in the movies, on the Web—they seem familiar, even trustworthy. Their stories of illness are very emotional, earning them our sympathy and empathy. Then there's their aura of invincibility: Whether it's the image of Armstrong winning the Tour de France (seven times!) or Reeve soaring as Superman, their swing from health to illness makes them underdogs we root for. Finally, celebrities are effective. Studies have shown that celebrity disclosure of an illness can increase public interest in the specific disease and lead to changes in the public's behavior. Many go on to form organizations and raise millions of dollars in support of research into their diseases.

Still, celebrity medical advice can be hazardous. Their messages have led some doctors and patients to make inappropriate health decisions, at times increasing risks for patients and driving up health care costs. Their advocacy, while informative and inspiring, often oversimplifies complex medical issues. Finally, the first-class advantages most celebrities enjoy can create false hope for their economy-class public.

Perhaps the best example of both the benefits and risks of celebrity medical advice is journalist Katie Couric. After her husband died from colon cancer at the young age of 42, Couric took up the fight against the disease. In 2000, she underwent a colonoscopy on TV as a way of urging others to get screened. The public followed: A 2003 study showed a 20 percent increase in colonoscopy rates in the months after Couric's TV segment. The study's authors labeled this phenomenon the "Couric Effect."

Yet colonoscopy, which Couric and her foundation call the gold standard of screening, remains controversial. Theodore R. Levin, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California and a national authority on colorectal cancer screening, offers caution about her message. He agrees that Couric's advocacy has been very helpful. But by pushing colonoscopy, the most invasive and expensive screening method, he worries that the public may not learn about safer and more convenient options.

One of them is the FIT test, a highly sensitive yet noninvasive test to detect blood in the stool. Patients can perform this test by themselves at home. In studies by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force that compare FIT testing with colonoscopy, outcomes are similar. Another controversy Couric has caused, probably as the result of her own experience, is her past advice that people in their 40s be routinely screened for colon cancer. That's something Levin and other experts agree makes no sense unless a person has a family history of the disease.

The simplicity of celebrity health messages also creates problems. Celebrity sound bites often don't include pertinent information. Colonoscopy, for example, carries the risks of bleeding, infection, or perforation of the colon. All screening tests can also result in misleading false positive or false negative rates and a whole host of other drawbacks the public really ought to know more about.

Publicity about a disease can also lead to a spike in health care costs without any added benefit. This is exactly what happened in 2005, when pop star Kylie Minogue, then just 37 years old, revealed she had breast cancer. In her native Australia, researchers found mammography rates rose 33 percent in women aged 25 to 34 and 25 percent in those 35 to 44 for six months after Minogue's revelation. The absolute number of breast biopsies increased in both age groups as well. Yet the number of confirmed breast cancers changed little. All that Minogue's publicity did was scare patients and doctors into overscreening. That drove up costs and needlessly exposed women to the radiation of a mammogram.

Barron H. Lerner, a physician and historian at Columbia University (and a Slate contributor), refers to anecdotal advice and advocacy as the "N equals 1 phenomenon" in his 2006 book, When Illness Goes Public. N equals 1 is when "specific cases … assume particular importance, even being seen as definitive examples of given diseases and their prognoses, and how they should be treated." Anecdote becomes scientific proof, which usually puts these assertions in contention with reality.

The N-equals-1 phenomenon can have a dramatic effect on the public. Take actor Steve McQueen, whom Lerner wrote about in his book. In 1979, McQueen was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare, deadly form of lung cancer. Doctors offered McQueen little hope he would survive. So McQueen turned to alternative medicine. He traveled to a clinic in Mexico, where he started an aggressive regimen of nutritional supplements, coffee enemas, massages, shampoos, prayer sessions, psychotherapy, rectal enzyme implants, and injections of a cell preparation made from fetuses of sheep and cattle. Initial reports suggested the treatment worked: McQueen's doctors in Mexico claimed that his tumor had shrunk by 60 percent to 75 percent.

McQueen praised his healers effusively. But the truth, revealed after his death in 1980, was that the tumor had only grown over time, extending from his lungs to his diaphragm, down into his intestines and up into his neck. Nevertheless, McQueen's story engaged the public and, most of all, inspired hope in cancer patients. All 152 rooms at his Mexico clinic were booked shortly after his death, and scores more clamored for admittance: all of that demand despite clear evidence that McQueenCare failed.

Even when celebrities playing doctor do make valid points, most of us can't even begin to match the wealth and resources they can bring to their own health battles. In 2003, Dr. Jerome Groopman profiled the actor Christopher Reeve in The New Yorker. Several years earlier, Reeve had fallen off his horse and broken his neck, leaving him paralyzed from the neck down.

Just like McQueen, Reeve was determined to find a cure for his injury. His activism in the form of lobbying for stem cell research and other cutting-edge ideas ignited interest in and raised money for spinal cord injuries. And Reeve's remarkable physical progress inspired others. "Every step that he makes … we know how incredible that is. … Seeing the progress he is making, it keeps us going," said one patient.

But Reeve's progress came with a hefty price tag. His annual medical expenses exceeded $500,000 a year. He also received free medical equipment from manufacturers as a result of his celebrity. One company gave him an electrical-stimulation bike, valued at $100,000, for home use. That sort of hope—not to mention free gifts—is unattainable for most of us, and a reminder that at least socioeconomically, we are not at all like the celebrities we admire.

Celebrities should thus exercise caution in their messages about health matters. Perhaps most important, they should be transparent. Take an example pediatricians like me deal with every day: ex-Playboy model Jenny McCarthy, who continues her crusade against vaccines because she believes they caused her son to develop autism.

Before she was the face and fury of the anti-vaccine movement, McCarthy described her infant son as a quiet "Buddha baby" who seemed to stare off into space rather than making eye contact and engaging with his mother. That's a classic early red flag for autism, one that was probably overlooked well before her son received many of his vaccines.

McCarthy discusses her son's ordeal at every turn, but she hasn't disclosed his medical records. If McCarthy is going to blame vaccination for autism despite all the medical and legal evidence to the contrary, she needs to be more up-front with her son's story. Celebrities who go public should also refrain from publicizing preliminary findings and be sure to communicate caveats, like the risks of a screening test in addition to its benefits, regularly.

Regardless, celebrity medical advice isn't going anywhere. We doctors must respect their ability to influence the public. But if those stars work more like Katie Couric, who partners with doctors, and less like Jenny McCarthy or Suzanne Somers, who use their celebrity to undermine them, celebrities are more likely to succeed in crafting both an influential and accurate message. ( slate.com )

The Addiction Habit Do we really need rehab centers for people who spend too much time shopping or using the Internet?

The Addiction Habit. Do we really need rehab centers for people who spend too much time shopping or using the Internet?.

Like a compulsive crack user desperately sucking on a broken pipe, we can't get enough of addiction. We got hooked on the concept a few centuries back, originally to describe the compulsive intake of alcohol and, later, the excessive use of drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Now it seems like we're using it every chance we can get—applying the concept to any behavior that seems troublesome or ill-advised. Take overuse of technology, for example: Over the summer, a flurry of media reports touted the services of the RESTART clinic in Washington state—apparently the first "Internet addiction" recovery center in the United States. For $15,000, you can enroll in a 45-day course designed to rid you of a dangerous or unhealthy fascination with, say, the online role-playing game World of Warcraft. So-called Internet addiction is just one of many new behavioral addictions to break into the mainstream: there's also shopping addiction, sex addiction, eating addiction, love addiction, and others.

Is this man addicted to sex?This creeping medicalization of everyday life means that almost any problem of excess can now be portrayed as an individual falling foul of a major mental illness. While drug addiction is a serious concern and a well-researched condition, many of the new behavioral addictions lack even the most basic foundations of scientific reliability. In light of Tiger Woods' extramarital trysts, "sex addiction" has been widely touted by the global media despite the fact it lacks official recognition and scientific support.

Perhaps the most widely publicized of these new diagnoses, Internet addiction, is flawed even on its own terms: A 2009 study published in the journal CyberPsychology and Behavior revealed that it has been classified in numerous, inconsistent ways in published research. Most studies of the "disorder" rely on self-selecting samples of college computer users and are otherwise subject to significant bias.

Despite the scientific implausibility of the same disease—addiction—underlying both damaging heroin use and overenthusiasm for World of Warcraft, the concept has run wild in the popular imagination. Our enthusiasm for labeling new forms of addictions seems to have arisen from a perfect storm of pop medicine, pseudo-neuroscience, and misplaced sympathy for the miserable.

You might assume that we've always known about addiction, but it's a relatively recent idea—and one that has almost always been championed by people with a political and moral agenda. The modern concept was invented in the 18^th century by physician Benjamin Rush, who, with his fellow temperance campaigners, promoted it as an explanation for, and warning against, the dangers of the demon drink. In this early formulation, the booze itself caused a "disease of the will."

Later, the theory of "degeneracy" became popular among medical men with the assumption that mental illness could be explained by an inherited tendency to be mentally defective and socially disadvantaged. The devastating effects of alcohol on supposedly inferior native people led colony psychiatrists in the 19^th century to conclude that the two conditions—drunkenness and degeneracy—went hand in hand.

Slowly the concept of addiction began to shift from poisonous drugs to a biological weakness among certain people. Addicts were to be pitied but not blamed. "Degeneration," along with eugenics, died a long-overdue death in the 1950s, but the idea that addiction is a vulnerability that exists before someone has even taken his first hit lives on. It seems to have reached its pinnacle in 2004, when a report from the World Health Organization called substance dependence "as much a disorder of the brain as any other neurological or psychiatric illness."

This reframing of addiction carries its own risks. We know that describing a problem solely from a medical perspective changes how we understand it, which may explain why addiction has become such a popular label for human troubles. Recent work by psychologist Meredith Young and colleagues at McMaster University in Canada has shown that if we replace a common name for an illness with a medical term—pharyngitis for sore throat, e.g.—people tend to perceive the illness as being more serious.

Several other studies have found that when mental disorders are described solely in biological terms, those with the diagnosis are perceived as having less control over their actions. This approach aims to be sympathetic to sufferers—but it may come at the cost of portraying the miserable as slaves to their damaged brains.

The idea that all these behavioral problems can be reduced to brain chemistry is also linked to a vacuous piece of pseudo-neuroscience. According to many popular discussions of the topic, dopamine equals addiction. That fallacy is often touted by mental health professionals as a substantive explanation when it is nothing of the sort. The popular myth goes something like this: Dopamine levels increase when we do something pleasurable, and this is what causes the addiction. When anyone wants to convince you that something should really count as an addiction, they'll quote the fact that it "raises dopamine levels."

The myth does have some basis in fact: We know that dopamine is involved in pleasure and desire, and that drug addiction causes long-term changes to the dopamine system that likely weaken our impulse control and draw our attention to reminders of drugs and drug-taking. There are subtle but important differences between these two statements, though. The former refers to an instant reaction to any pleasurable activity, while the latter indicates a possibly permanent change in how the brain reacts to the world owing to the use of substances which artificially alter it.

There's no direct one-to-one relationship between dopamine and addiction, and knowing that this particular brain chemical is released during an activity predicts nothing about how problematic the activity might be. As the dopamine system starts working when we encounter anything pleasurable, the popular myth would suggest everything we like could be addictive: reading books, scratching an itch, building model steamships out of matchsticks, whatever floats your boat. A recent article on extended and unresolved grieving for the New York Times cited a study on how dopamine is released when affected people looked at a picture of their late family member, suggesting that even thoughts of the deceased could be addictive.

The fact that the dopamine fallacy is used to prop up our dubious assumptions rather than test them can be seen in how some pleasurable, repetitive, and likely dopamine-fueled behaviors are never described as an addiction. A study by psychologists Kirk Wakefield and Daniel Wann found that while most sports fans are well-adjusted, others are preoccupied with their fandom, excessively motivated to follow their team, and abusive in response to outcomes on the field.

What's more, sports fandom has a clear and well-researched link to violence, social disorder, and alcohol abuse. But despite the fact that following a sports team could have serious personal and social consequences, and seems to fulfill all the criteria for a diagnosis of behavioral addiction, it is never considered as such. Being a fan of an online computer game, however, can get you placed in an expensive private clinic for "addiction therapy."

Currently, we are concerned about young people using the Internet, eating too much, spending irresponsibly, and being promiscuous, and these worries are being expressed in the language of addiction. The medical terminology helps us to believe we're avoiding moralization or blame, and popular science has given us a sound bite of pseudo-neurology to support our prejudices.

For these problems, addiction is little more than a fig leaf for a realistic understanding that would address why people return to unhelpful ways of coping with isolation, stress, and depression. Instead, we prefer to rely on a trite and unhelpful catch-all label that prevents people from getting appropriate help for their difficulties. We need to break the addiction habit, before it breaks us. ( slate.com )

Five Ways to Revitalize Your Search

Five Ways to Revitalize Your Search. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, 19.3 percent of full-time workers were unemployed for 27 weeks or more in 2006. If you have been looking for a job for a while, there's a good chance you're frustrated with your inability to find one. The longer you're on the job hunt, the more likely it seems that you won't ever be employed.

But the job market remains strong for highly skilled professionals, and with the right approach, you can significantly increase your chances of landing the position you seek. Here are five ways to fend off the frustration and revitalize your job search:

1. Revisit old possibilities.

It's likely that you sent out a flurry of résumés in the early part of your search and received responses from or even interviewed with a few hiring managers. Even though you weren't offered a job, that doesn't mean these businesses aren't interested in hiring you now, especially if you reached the later stages of the interview process. So consider reaching out to the firms you initially contacted to express your continued interest in working there and to find out if any new openings exist.

2. Broaden your network.

One of the best ways to find a job is through people you know because résumés from referrals often receive top billing among hiring managers. If you've been networking through friends and family and still haven't found work, it's time to expand your list of contacts. Talk to former co-workers and managers, college alumni and members of professional organizations you belong to. Or schedule informational interviews at businesses you're interested in so you have a contact when a job opens up. Remember that it never hurts to get back in touch with people you've already spoken with, either to let them know you're still looking for a job or to better specify what sort of position you hope to find.

3. Determine your weak points and strengthen them.

Instead of making small changes in multiple areas of your job search, it's better to step back and take a look at the search from a broader perspective. Chances are, altering one aspect of your search, based on where you're having the most problems, can have a big impact on your success with employers.

For example, say you've gone on several interviews and have even been called back for additional meetings with some companies. But you still haven't received any offers. The problem may lie solely with your interview skills after all, your résumé and cover letter are drawing heavy interest from employers. So instead of trying to "fix" something that's in good working order your application materials devote extra attention to your interview skills. You might review questions you've been asked by hiring managers thus far and practice your responses with a friend who can critique you.

4. Take classes or workshops.

It's never a bad idea to improve your skill set. You can take a class and build capabilities in new area. Or maybe you've noticed a skill requirement you don't have that keeps popping up on the job descriptions that interest you. For example, if you're an editor or writer, and the jobs you apply for frequently require "basic HTML proficiency," your lack of knowledge in this area could prevent you from landing a new position. Taking classes, either online or at a local university, or even working with a friend who knows this programming language, can help you get up to speed and improve your marketability. Just make sure to update your résumé upon learning a new skill or strengthening your proficiency in a certain area.

5. Take a temporary job.

While you're probably searching for a full-time job, it might be worth considering working as a temporary professional. Not only can temporary jobs help you build new skills, you also will be able to meet people who could serve as valuable contacts down the road. And a temporary engagement may very well lead to a full-time position. In a Robert Half International survey, nearly one-in-four executives said the most important benefit of using temporary workers is to evaluate a prospective employee before making a full-time job offer.

Whatever you do to jump-start your job search, be sure to give thought to all employment opportunities that come your way, even those that don't seem promising at first. For example, a position that does not offer the starting pay you had hoped for might provide other benefits, such as the ability to quickly advance within the organization. You never know what will lead you to your next job, but remaining motivated and marketable will help you find it eventually. ( msn.com )

Six Rules for Effective 'Net-working

Six Rules for Effective 'Net-working. For busy workers, networking online is a great way to quickly meet dozens -- or even hundreds -- of like-minded professionals. It also can be an option for those less inclined to reach out and socialize with new business contacts in a traditional setting.

Web sites like LinkedIn.com and MeetUp.com, as well as industry conference discussion forums and trade association chat rooms, are making it easier for people to expand their professional networks. But, if you do not use these portals wisely, you can make mistakes that will shrink rather than supersize your base of contacts.

While the Internet can seem like a casual environment, the rules of etiquette still apply. In fact, you should be particularly vigilant while conversing in cyberspace as it's easy to let down your guard and express opinions or use language you normally wouldn't because you're not face to face with your audience. Worse, when you make a faux pas online, it may be posted for everyone to see and "etched in stone" if your comments are archived on the site.

Following are six rules for ensuring your online networking efforts impress rather than offend:

1. Choose your venues wisely.

The best forums for professional networking tend to be those well moderated and frequented by participants you can learn from; many industry associations host their own business forums that you can participate in even if you are not a paying member. Also, remember your networking activities do not have to be limited to business- or industry-specific sites. If you're a marketer, for example, someone you meet through a Web site dedicated to those with a passion for painting could become a valuable member of your network.

2. Learn the rules.

Before participating in any online discussion group, be sure to read the guidelines. Also spend some time reviewing the archives or FAQs to get additional insight into the group. Some forums, for example, may not allow participants to promote their services, while others may have chat rooms designated just for doing business.

3. Come up with a sig line.

A signature file or "sig line" is a short block of text that can be automatically attached to the end of electronic messages. It helps identify you and provides some insight into who you are. A sig line can contain your name, company or professional affiliation and contact information.

4. Proofread your posts.

You should avoid discussing personal issues or outrageous weekend escapades online. Read your message several times to make sure you're not revealing confidential information -- about yourself or your company -- or coming across as rude or overbearing. Typos or other grammatical errors can also make you appear unprofessional, so be sure your posts are clean and well composed.

5. Play nice.

Avoid sarcasm as much as possible. What you view as dry humor may come across as searing criticism in a posting. Also, always be respectful and tolerant of others' ideas and opinions. You may be offended by one member's comments or get discouraged when someone disagrees with you, but resist the temptation to write a harsh message in response. Negative or defensive remarks will only fuel the fire.

6. Don't steal the stage.

Be selective in your commentary; there's no need to weigh in on every topic. You'll earn more credibility if you provide insight on the subjects you know best. Also, consider sending messages to participants directly, rather than copying the entire group, if the topic you want to discuss pertains to only a select few.

7. Be a resource.

Don't consult your professional network only when you need something; regularly e-mail business contacts to offer your assistance, share a news article or update them on your career progress or a recent business win.

When networking online, it's crucial to demonstrate courtesy and tact in order to foster healthy professional relationships. By following the suggestions outlined in this article, you can develop a strong online presence that leads to new job leads, clients or potential mentors who can help you advance your career. ( msn.com )

Five Job Search Mishaps

Five Job Search Mishaps. Everyone makes mistakes, but one of the worst times to do so is when you're applying for a job. As Lori McLeese, Chief People Officer at San Francisco-based nonprofit Room to Read, says: "I think of the job search process as dating, where you and the job seeker are on your very best behavior. If any red flags come up during this time, I wonder what the candidate's performance will be like if we hire him or her."

Indeed, many mistakes -- like showing up late to a job interview -- will throw into severe doubt your chances of receiving a job offer. Is there a way to recover from such a serious gaffe?

Despite your best efforts, there are some mistakes you simply can't recover from, such as submitting a résumé and cover letter addressed to the wrong employer. But other errors do not necessarily spell doom for you.

Following are common mistakes job seekers make and tactics that will give you a fighting chance to recover:

Mishap No. 1: You arrive too late

If there's one rule of interviewing it's to never arrive late. And yet, despite leaving your house with plenty of time to spare, you get stuck in traffic and watch as your meeting time creeps closer and closer. The key here is to not wait until the last minute. If you expect to be late, call the hiring manager to explain your delay and provide an estimate as to when you will arrive. In most cases, the person will understand the circumstances and be able to postpone or reschedule the interview. The hiring manager will question your professionalism and desire to land the position if you keep him or her waiting without an update from you.

Mishap No. 2: You arrive too early

Though it may not seem like a terrible offense, being very early for an interview can create a poor first impression. If you're camped out in the reception area half an hour before your meeting, the hiring manager may not appreciate the pressure to see you earlier than expected. Wait in your car or outside the building if you arrive more than 15 minutes before an interview and use the time to prepare. Then, head to the restroom to check your appearance one last time. Aim to be in the company's lobby about five minutes early.

Mishap No. 3: You flub an interview question

"Why are manhole covers round?" Even if you're not asked a brainteaser like this, you may stumble when answering a question posed by the hiring manager. In this situation, don't panic. If you find yourself rambling or grasping for words, pause to think more about your answer. The interviewer will understand if you need some time to formulate a response. If you bombed a question earlier in the meeting, only to think of the perfect response later, ask the hiring manager if you can revisit the question. You'll demonstrate your ability to think on your feet and have the opportunity to get your message across.

Mishap No. 4: You hit "send" too soon

A hiring manager at a Bay Area financial institution recalled a former candidate who was in the running for a job -- until the applicant sent the following thank-you e-mail: "I do think this position would be a great fit for my background and experience, and I'm sad to hear there will not be the possibility of working with you." Says the manager, "I was laughing too much at her mistake to take her seriously for the job."

But there is a way to make a comeback from this type of error. When a candidate McLeese interviewed made a similar mistake, the job seeker sent a second e-mail apologizing for the mistake and referencing a number of tidbits from their conversation. "She remembered that I was the first human resources employee at the company; that I have lived in Kuwait, Egypt and South Korea; and that I like to snowboard," McLeese says. "Given the follow-up and personal touch, it was a mistake I could overlook."

Your best approach when it comes to a technology snafu? Don't pretend it didn't happen. Instead, diplomatically address the situation. Even if you don't ultimately get the job, you'll showcase your personality and ability to recover from a mistake.

Mishap No. 5: You lowball yourself

What happens when a hiring manager requests your salary requirements, and you later find that you asked for too little compensation? Be honest and act quickly. Tell the hiring manager that you've done additional research and feel the figure you quoted falls below market trends. Be sure to reference any supporting documentation, such as salary surveys, that help you make a case for higher starting pay. Employers are often willing to renegotiate salary before an offer is accepted if an error like this is made because they want new employees to feel valued from day one. However, in the future, you should always do your compensation research before you begin the interview process.

A blunder during the job search can create an opportunity for you to demonstrate skills -- such as diplomacy and tact -- not always evident during the hiring process. Often, it's how you handle a mishap that offers hiring managers valuable insight into your character -- and how you'd behave in a similar situation if you were hired.( msn.com )

Seven Jobs in Health Care That Require Moderate Training

Seven Jobs in Health Care That Require Moderate Training. No job is guaranteed to last forever, but certain industries offer more hope for longevity, an especially attractive quality these days. The health-care industry employed 14 million workers in 2006, making it the largest sector in the nation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its outlook is promising, with the potential to add 3 million new jobs between 2006 and 2016.

Many jobs in health care require an extensive education that combines formal schooling with on-the-job training. Naturally, you want surgeons to have several years of practice before they begin operating on patients. You might be surprised to learn how many jobs -- none of which allows you to perform a transplant, thankfully -- you can find in health care with a moderate amount of formal training.

Here are seven jobs in health care that offer plenty of on-the-job training or require less than a bachelor's degree. Not only do these jobs allow you to work in a thriving field, but you also have the satisfaction of helping someone's well-being.

Pharmacy technicians

What they do: Perform administrative tasks in pharmacies and assist pharmacists preparing medication for patients.

Training: No nationwide regulations for a pharmacy technician's education exist, so each state has its own guidelines. Certification and formal training are definitely positives for job seekers, but expect plenty of on-the-job training as well.

Salary: $26,720

Medical transcriptionists

What they do: Transcribe audio recordings made by doctors and other medical staff. The recordings are often of medical reports or notes that need to be formally documented.

Training: Transcriptionists can obtain certification, which helps employment opportunities. Depending on the employer, adequate course work or an associate degree in a relevant field can qualify you for a job.

Salary: $31,250

Clinical laboratory technicians

What they do: Perform various tasks -- ranging from collecting blood samples to preparing tissue samples -- in a clinical lab.

Training: An associate degree or certification is preferred by most employers, but expect plenty of on-the-job training as well.

Salary: $34,270

Medical secretaries

What they do: Work with physicians and scientists to write articles, speeches, presentations and reports.

Training: Requirements vary, but all secretaries should have a strong command of grammar and possess excellent communication skills. Knowledge of medical terminology, procedures and insurance practices also helps.

Salary: $28,950

Medical records and health information technicians

What they do: Ensure that patient records are complete and accurate. They review medical charts and other documents that need to be on file regarding the patient's medical history.

Training: An associate degree is standard, although relevant health-care experience or status as a registered health information technician improves job opportunities.

Salary: $29,290

Physical therapist aides

What they do: Prepare the physical therapy site for a patient's treatment and assist with other duties that a physical therapist or a physical therapist assistant requests.

Training: On-site training is typical, though related education is helpful.

Salary: $22,990

Personal and home care aides

What they do: Help patients live comfortably in their own homes or in a live-in facility that is not a hospital or institution. Their patients can range from elderly individuals to people with disabilities.

Training: On-the-job training is standard, although some states and employers require further education, which you can obtain from a vocational school or community college.

Salary: $18,480

( msn.com )

Five Tips for Executive-Level Job Seekers

Five Tips for Executive - Level Job Seekers. Recent economic woes have struck a severe blow to the nation's work force -- penetrating as high as the top tiers of corporate America. As the economy becomes increasingly shaky and companies are forced to trim budgets, executive-level and management positions have become more vulnerable than ever.

Considered by many to be "untouchable," thousands of upper-level professionals have been thrust into unemployment and have discovered that today's job market is much harder to navigate than in previous years. Now, the market is flooded with candidates just as highly skilled and experienced as the next. In addition, finding a job that can match -- if not improve upon -- a prior position can seem incredibly daunting due to many companies' growing financial limitations.

To stand out from their competition and prove that they offer a high return on investment, executive-level job seekers need certain tools, including the essential job-search documents needed to market oneself in the job hunt, plus a few others to achieve an advantage over competitors.

"There's no question that the executive résumé and cover letter are the foundations of your career-search plan. However, you'll want to give careful consideration to some additional tools that are capable of providing significant leverage in your search," say Louise Kursmark and Jan Melnik, co-authors of "Executive's Pocket Guide to ROI Résumés and Job Search."

In their book, Kursmark and Melnik encourage job seekers pursuing leadership positions to create and implement the following tools in their job search:

Elevator speech

An "elevator speech" is a 30-second summary (the time you have if you run into a potential employer on an elevator) that briefly introduces individuals to those who can help them in the job search. Many managers and executives have probably already developed and delivered this type of speech to people several times throughout their careers, but may need to adjust it to reflect their new goals.

According to Kursmark and Melnik, job seekers must convey four key elements throughout their introduction, including who they are, what they do, what they're seeking and any other key information relevant to their experience or job search goals.

In addition to knowing how to develop this tool, it's essential for job seekers to know when to use it. A good rule of thumb is to always be prepared with an elevator speech. They can be useful at networking events, clubs and associations; during "cold" phone calls; as well as at personal events such as weddings, dinners and any type of impromptu opportunity.

Networking script

Networking is the key to finding good jobs quickly, which is why having a plan for networking situations is critical. While these conversations will all be unique and should feel genuine, it helps for job seekers to outline a few key points they'd like to address during the conversation. For example, job seekers will want to ask questions such as, "What ideas or referrals might you have for me?" "What related industries can you think of, and contacts do you know, where these skills might prove valuable?" or "Who in your network might be interested in someone with my leadership experience and background?"

Leadership initiative document

This one- to two-page document is a relatively new tool job seekers are using to further market their achievements and leadership experience. Typically, this document lists three to five career-defining stories that describe a specific situation or challenge, tactics and actions implemented to address the problem and results achieved. Ideally, these stories should reflect what the job seeker would hope to accomplish in the new position.

After crafting this document, job seekers can use it several ways. It can become a leave-behind document following interviews or meetings, a follow-up piece to a résumé and an additional component to the traditional résumé/cover letter package.

Professional biography

This tool provides more extensive information about the job seeker; it is ideal for portfolios or personal Web sites and used as a tool for recruiters to use when introducing or advancing the candidate to a company or organization. After the job search, this document is still useful and often used for company news releases, marketing materials and Web sites, as well as for public-speaking engagements.

Targeted search summary

This document identifies employers and industries in which the job seeker is interested. This tool comes in extremely handy at networking meetings where others may appreciate a visual reminder of where the job seeker's interests and opportunities are.

While each of these components of the job search can be extremely beneficial to job seekers, Kursmark and Melnik warn not to overload hiring managers and recruiters with too much information. "Instead, carefully select and present only the documents that will stimulate their interest in you and your professional capabilities." ( msn.com )