Welcome to tricksvan.blogspot.com, a blog on Computer tips and tricks. I will update new and latest Computer tips here. All Hacking Tips will also be posted.Beware, this blog does not contain any virus or malware, all tips are safe and hacking here is only intended for hacking your own computer for speed and more advanced functionality. All the Computer tips will be helpful for beginners as well as advanced.
Well having a website and want to get make you found in Google, Yahoo or Bing or any of these search engines and it can be a bit of difficult to know that how to begin and where to begin and here are the some tips to be get started it with for the starters:
1. Never purchase a domain in less you have to. The search engines will put the lot of stock in the how long your website or domain have been around if you are purchasing domains to use the existing domain if is all possible.
2. Get optimize your website to the target audiences, not for the search engines, the search engines look in for the sites into the key words that which looks best in it as into a search box.
If you wanna raise your Google Plus followers, it’s very easy to get them. Of courses everyone wanna have more followers on google+. There are lot of cool tips to get them, but i’m going to tell you some of tips which help you lot. Most of people use google plus for business, obviously they need more followers to get more business, visitors & reader.
without understanding some fundamentals of the internetrattle your nerves? Welcome to my world of watching the same thing happen about Google and search.
In September, the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing called “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?”
Yesterday, the subcommittee released a letter out of that hearing, advising the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate further — something the FTC was already doing.
Reading though the letter made my jaw drop in several places. Despite the subcommittee saying it’s not out to get Google:
It is important to note that the concerns expressed in this letter are not an effort to protect any specific competitor
The conclusions come across pretty one-sided. But more important, it comes across as a pretty superficial examination of a really important topic.
Despite substantial amounts of staff time and money spent to have the hearings, the committee mistakenly believes that Microsoft’s Bing search engine is a Yahoo and Microsoft production.
It’s not. Bing is a wholly-owned part of Microsoft. Yahoo has no ownership in Bing.
But wait. Isn’t there a partnership? Yes, but one that gives Yahoo a minor role handling Bing’s ad sales to “high volume” advertisers. The deal came after Bing was launched. It wasn’t an essential part of it, nor does it help with Bing building consumer market share against Google.
If the committee fully understood the competitive space, they’ve have said instead:
Yahoo Search, a partnership of Microsoft and Yahoo
That would be far more accurate. That’s because Yahoo no longer has its own core search technology, nor its own search ad serving technology. It gave all these up to partner with Microsoft (it would have kept them in a deal with Google. See our side-by-side comparison).
Heck, Yahoo’s former CEO Carol Bartz was quite specific that her goal was to use Bing’s technology as a way to somehow beat Bing at its own game. Bing wasn’t a partnership to her; it was the competition.
Bing & Yahoo Distant To Google?
Perhaps the committee thought that the “partnership” was the overall “search alliance” between Bing and Yahoo? If that was the case, then why did the letter go on to say
…which is a distant second in market share and is losing an estimated $2 billion annually…
Those stats only make sense if you’re talking about Bing itself, having a 15% share to Google’s 65% in the United States, as recently reported. If you’re talking about Bing and Yahoo combined, they come up to 30%, much healther competition.
Should that bigger figure have been mentioned, since the committee was talking about partnerships? Either the letter was one-sided or simply not comprehensive enough. In either case, I expect more out of the work that went into that hearing.
Google Favors Itself (Like Everyone Else)
This part was fun reading:
Rather than act as an honest broker of unbiased search results, Google’s search results appear to favor the company’s own web products and services
It’s difficult from the letter to understand if the committee is declaring this to be fact or simply saying that Google’s critics are alleging this. To me, it comes off as the former, since the attribution of this claim is tossed into the footnotes:
Google critics also argue that the very layout of the Google search results first page is biased in favor of its own products and services. They point to the amount of the “real estate” in the search result page devoted to Google content, including paid advertising at the top and on the right of the page, and the Google “places” or “onebox” results, which are not designated as Google results separate rom the algorithmic results. Consumers have no way of knowing that these one box results are not pat of the algorithmic results.
On its own, this sounds dramatic. But if you’re looking at how the search industry operates in general, Google’s doing exactly what its competitors Bing and Yahoo do. Consider this:
That’s a side-by-side comparison I did of how Google (on the left) and Bing (on the right) both “favor” themselves in various ways, as part of my Does The FairSearch White Paper On Google Being Anticompetitive Hold Up? article from October.
Pick your search, and you can find Bing or Yahoo “favoring” themselves in all the same ways that Google is accused of. If deemed to have a monopoly, potentially Google will be held to a higher standard. But the suggestion in the letter is that Google is already doing something that’s out of the ordinary. That’s not the case.
Does The Committee Know FTC Guidelines Already Exist?
You’d think the committee would know this. You’d think the committee, after all the research it did, would want to appraise the FTC that such an industry standard exists.
It doesn’t. Instead, the footnote goes on to say:
We believe, under the FTC’s mandate to protect consumers rom misleading and deceptive practices, the FTC should seriously consider requiring Google to label its “onebox” or “places” listing (or other similar listings), as Google products, just as it labels paid search results.
As it turns out, the FTC already pondered this, back in 2002. The FTC issued guidelines relating to paid placement and paid inclusion and deliberately refrained from dealing with one-box type units. As I wrote at the time:
The FTC did not address the issue of content promotion, where a portal site might list its own content over others in search results. For example, at Yahoo, a search usually brings up the “Inside Yahoo” matches at the top of the page. This is Yahoo’s own content, being promoted over others.
Similarly, at MSN Search, the “Featured Listings” area may promote MSN’s own content, or content of advertisers or sponsors, or even content of good web sites for free, if they editorially deserve to be there.
I asked Thomas and Forbes if there was any guidance on this issue, and the view that emerged seemed to be to err on the side of caution. Favoritism of any type should be disclosed, to avoid consumer confusion.
Expanding the guidelines might make sense. They’re nearly 10 years old now. But because the existing guidelines weren’t mentioned, I get the impression the committee was ignorant of them. That’s disturbing, because knowing those guidelines is basic homework that should have been done.
Ignores One FTC Guideline While Pushing For Another
Later in the letter, we have this:
Also at our Subcommittee hearing, Yelp! CEO Jeremy Stoppelman and Nextag CEO Jeffrey Katz testified that Google’s practice of favoring its own content harms them directly by depriving their sites of user traffic and advertising revenue.
Mr. Stoppelman testified that 75 percent of Yelp!’s web traffic consists of consumers who find its website as a result of Google searches, and Mr. Katz testiied that 65 percent of Nextag’s traffic originates from Google searches.
They testified that losing this trafic would threaten the continued viability of their companies, which would have to spend much more on advertising to make up for lost traffic coming from Google queries.
Let’s set aside the absurdity that Google has been so abusive to both companies that they “only” get 65 to 75% of all their traffic from Google for free. If that’s abuse, please sir, may I have another?
Seriously, no one on the committee questions how a company can claim they’ve been harmed by a competitor that sends them 2/3 to 3/4 of their traffic for free? That doesn’t get a mention, a metaphorical raised eyebrow, in this letter?
Let’s focus instead on the concern that NexTag might have to pay more in advertising if Google were to perhaps send more people into Google Shopping.
When people go into Google Shopping, they find listings from thousands of merchants all across the web, merchants that pay exactly $0 to be listed in the editorial listings.
If Google routed more people to NexTag, then NexTag might not have to advertise so much to get people to come to its own shopping search engine, where people find listings from thousands of merchants across the web — assuming those merchants pay to be listed.
That’s because, you see, while NexTag doesn’t want to pay more for traffic from Google, NexTag apparently has no problem requiring merchants to pay to be listed within its own listings.
As best I can tell, the only way you get listed in NexTag is through paid inclusion. It’s like buying a lottery ticket. There’s no guarantee you’ll win (rank well), but you only have a chance at all if you pay. Merchants who don’t pay don’t get listed.
That brings us back to the FTC, which has guidelines that search engines that run paid inclusion programs disclose this to consumers in specific ways. When I wrote my Does The FairSearch White Paper On Google Being Anticompetitive Hold Up? article, it seemed that NexTag wasn’t doing what’s required.
In short, the committee is holding up NexTag — which might be violating the FTC’s own guidelines — as a poster child for the FTC to potentially create more guidelines aimed specifically at Google.
The committee also oddly seems more motivated to ensure that NexTag pays less in advertising than the fact that regulating NexTag’s inclusion in Google might cause thousands of individual merchants to pay more.
This is another example of the basic fundamentals of search the committee doesn’t seem to grasp, and it’s frightening to witness.
Proof Of Google Favoring Its Own Sites!
Perhaps one of the most damning bits of evidence that Google is favoring itself to the degree might require regulation comes when the letter cites the now-famous words of Google’s Marissa Mayer speaking in 2007:
As discussed at our Subcommittee hearing, Marissa Mayer, Google’s Vice President of Local, Maps, and Location Services, admitted in a 2007 speech that Google did in fact preference its own websites. She acknowledged that, in the past, Google ranked links
“based on popularity … but when we roll[ed] out Google Finance, we did put the Google link first. It seems only fair, right? We do all the work for the search page and all these other things, so we do put it first… That has actually been our policy, since then … So for Google Maps again, it’s the first link, so on and so forth. And later that it’s ranked usually by popularity.”
In response to written follow-up questions asking whether her statement was an accurate statement of Google policy, Eric Schmidt stated that “it is my understanding that she was referring to the placement of links within a onebox … and her description was accurate.”
While the basis for Mr. Schmidt’s “understanding” is not clear, even if her statement was in fact limited to the “onebox” result, this is a clear admission of preferencing Google results.
First, how about watching what she said herself:
(Sorry, the embed was supposed to play beginning at 44m 39s in, but that doesn’t work. Thiswill jump you directly there).
Next, here’s what she actually said from my listening and transcribing:
based on various published metrics like comScore and Media Metrix, so we had the five top finance sites in their order of popularity listed there. So when we rolled out Google Finance, we did put the Google link first. It seems only fair, right? We do all the work for the search page and all these other things, so we do put it first, but and that’s actually been our policy and because of finance we actually implemented it in other places So for Google Maps again, it’s the first link, so on and so forth. And after that that it’s ranked usually by popularity
Everything in bold is different from what was quoted in the letter. In other words, the transcription of what she said in the letter isn’t correct.
The core meaning is the same, but when the transcription is different, it suggests that no one actually listened to what she said directly and wrote that down, much less listened to the full context of what was discussed, much less fully understood some of the issues involved.
For further context, I’d encourage anyone to watch only a few minutes earlier, when Mayer answers a question about dealing with bias and user trust:
(Sorry, the embed was supposed to play beginning at 42m 15s in, but that doesn’t work. This will jump you directly there).
Mayer talks about providing the best answer, not just the best answer you’re paid to give, how Google has hesitancy over being a content provider to avoid potential conflicts, how it has tried to be agnostic when blending content from its own sites into regular search results, speaking in particular how the company includes video beyond just YouTube.
There are serious issues about Google, or any search engine, hosting content. Google has certainly expanded in this area, but so have its competitors. But it’s clear from Mayer’s talk that it wasn’t just a case of Google deciding it should simply favor itself over all others, as her single quote gives the impression.
This Is Your Smoking Gun?
More important, the committee doesn’t seem to care whether Mayer was talking about a single link in a OneBox unit or a regular search listing. Favoring in any way is an “clear admission of preferencing,” and that seems to be it, case closed.
Let’s look at this in more context. Here’s what was being discussed in Mayer’s talk, which still works today, if a do a search for something like Apple’s stock price:
The link that Mayer was talking about is where the first row of arrows points to. Google Finance comes first in the list under the stock quote, followed by links to five competing finance sites. If it were really favoring itself, you wouldn’t expect Google to be showing any of the other links.
Similarly, below the stock quote, Google lists pages leading to various finance sites around the web. Here, in its “main” results, Google doesn’t list itself first and it does list plenty of competing sites.
Now let’s look at the situation with Google competitor Yahoo:
Yahoo has the same type of OneBox unit at the top of its page that Google does. Unlike Google, Yahoo doesn’t link to any competitors in it. Further down, in the main results, Yahoo does list competing sites, including Google.
Now here’s Bing:
It’s the same situation as with Yahoo. Bing’s own OneBox area only lists Bing, no competitors. Bing’s main results do list competitors. While Bing tops the main results in this search, that’s not always the case.
One of the things I’ve learned covering all these investigations is that if Google is deemed to have a dominant role in the search space, it might have to go above and beyond industry standards to ensure it’s being fair to competitors.
That’s what the screenshots above show. Mayer’s quote, rather than being damning about Google favoring itself, rather demonstrates a long-standing effort of Google going above-and-beyond to be fair.
The industry standard for these types of boxes is that you list your own service first and no others. Google, in contrast, follows the standard practice and then makes an extra effort to include its competitors, in a way they don’t reciprocate.
This is another fundamental that you really should understand, if you’re pushing to regulate search. And alarmingly, the committee clearly either doesn’t understand it or really doesn’t care.
Google Doesn’t Own Motorola Mobility
Further down in the letter, another alarm bell went off:
Additionally, Google owns the popular Android operating system for smart phones and in September 2011 announced its acquisition of Motorola Mobility, a leading mobile phone manufacturer.
That’s incorrect, about Motorola Mobility. Google has announced it wants to buy Motorola Mobility and said that in August 2011, not September 2011. But it won’t acquire the company until reviews are done by US Department of Justice and the European Union.
The letter does qualify that the Motorola Mobility purchase is being reviewed, but that’s in an unrelated footnote. It’s an important enough qualification that it should have happened in the main body, and the date of the announcement should have been correct.
These types of errors again give the impression that the committee failed to fully researched this letter or simply rushed it out, and the issues involved are too important for that. If you’re going to hold a hearing to investigate a cause, follow through properly, with care.
The One-Sided Setup
Near the end, just when I thought there wasn’t anything left to surprise me, I got this:
Google strongly denies the arguments of its critics. Google claims it has done nothing to harm competition and that it merely seeks to serve consumers with the best Internet search results.
Over and over, the letter focuses on accusations from Google’s critics, sometimes restating them as facts. Against that, only Google is cited. No one beyond Google is apparently finding any of the criticisms to be doubtful, even though there are some studies that could have been cited, even some of the same ones used by critics.
So when I get to this part at the end:
We are committed to ensuring that consumers benefit from robust competition in online search and that the Internet remains the source of much free-market innovation. We therefore urge the FTC to investigate the issues raised at our Subcommittee hearing to determine whether Google’s actions violate antitrust law or substantially harm consumers or competition in this vital industry.
I’m not convinced. I feel like we all witnessed a time-consuming and expensive hearing so a few senators could pretend that they actually did something related to curbing Google, assuming that this is somehow something people may want them to do (one survey says no).
The hearing did deliver the spectacle of seeing Google Chairman Eric Schmidt admit to having a monopoly in search, only to try and recant that later in written follow-ups. That can and will be used against Google. But it’s not illegal to be a monopoly, only to abuse your power to harm consumers or competitors if so. That case has yet to be proven, and the letter from the hearing offers little to help.
It’s Not Fanboy To Want Fairness
Let me conclude with this. Occasionally, I get accused of being a Google fanboy when I write about these matters. I’m not. I was writing about realreasons why Google might be liable in an antitrust case years ago, before investigations were even near beginning.
I’m trying to provide some balance where balance is needed. I didn’t see a lot of that in these hearings, nor in the letter that came out of it.
Is it good to look into these issues, whether Google is potentially abusing its market position. Absolutely!
Is it good to look carefully at these issues, getting range of educated viewpoints, to ensure that consumers and the competitive market are well protected? It’s essential!
Is it good to stage political theater where US senators seem uncertain about how search works or unabashedly ask for Google handouts? No. That’s terrible!
But terrible is what we got, so far. Watching all this political discussion happen in September, around an area I know so well, I realized one chilling thing. It’s not that Washington doesn’t know search. It’s not that Washington doesn’t know the internet. It’s that Washington doesn’t know anything but what paid lobbyists are pushing on it.
Fortunately, I have much more faith in the FTC itself. I watched 10 years ago as it grappled with the challenge of how to deal with labeling search results, and it crafted guidelines that helped save consumers from a developing mess. I’ll hope once again it comes through to assess the situation of fairness within search and make appropriate guidelines as needed.
It’s a safe bet that right this minute, someone, somewhere, is advising a small business owner to start a blog. And it’s an equally safe bet that this blog will be a waste of time.
Blogging used to be an effective strategy, but its current popularity is a holdover. And case study after case study obscure the fact that successful blog-driven marketing campaigns are a rarity; unvisited, abandoned company blogs are far more common.
Blogging is not just one of those strategies that needs to be tailored to specific situations: it’s a strategy that, by default, will fail.
The online content business has gotten insanely competitive since blogging started, and only the most aggressive sites succeed. And there’s plenty of over-optimistic competition.
Starting a blog was a great way to distinguish your business from a horde of local businesses offering pretty similar services. Even if you weren’t a great writer and didn’t have a ton of insight, merely giving people an inside look at how the business really worked was enough to give you an edge.
That was true from roughly 2003 to, oh say, 2004. But blogs are no longer unique—if you’re writing a blog, you’re competing on writing quality, insight, and marketing chops.
But if you’re writing a blog to promote a small business, you’re probably a dentist, a plumber, an accountant— you’re pitting yourself against professional bloggers, both in the industry and at local news venues.
On top of that, SERPs are less forgiving than they used to be. In the early days, a local florist’s blog with a couple solid links could rank #1 for a term like “[city name] + florist”.
Now, that blog is below three AdWords slots, seven local results, a list of related terms, and a geographic disambiguation page.
For users, that might be positive: an algorithm designed to detect topical authorities is not an algorithm designed to facilitate transactions, but lots of searches are transactional.
Blogging as a marketing tool relies on a sort of viral loop:
You write something interesting about being, say, a podiatrist.
People hear about your podiatry blog, and link to it.
These links make Google treat you as an authority on podiatry; your site copy indicates that you’re in, say, Des Moines, so they rank you for [Podiatry or something similar] + [Des Moines or somewhere nearby].
Now, the viral loop is more like:
You write the 10th most interesting thing about podiatry that day.
Content produced is growing faster than time available to consume it, so the minimum threshold for interesting content keeps going up.
That’s why big media companies keep launching blogs, and why so many rapidly-growing blog networks focus on consumer-facing content like celebrity gossip.
Idea, Execution, Or Both?
The “macro”-situation isn’t the only problem: even small business blogs that do get read tend to miss some big opportunities.
The classic mistakes that small business bloggers make:
Letting category pages get indexed
The default configuration on many blogging software packages allows massive category pages to get indexed. This does generate some traffic, but mostly from extremely long queries that include keywords found in multiple blog posts. These queries are low-quality traffic with a very high bounce rate.
Not treating blog posts as landing pages
Very, very few people will subscribe to a local business’s blog unless they already like the business. To turn new blog visitors into new customers, every blog post should close with a relevant call-to-action.
If you’re writing about this season’s newest floral arrangements, you’d better be selling them by the end of the post. (That’s going to benefit a blog much more than a comments section with zero comments.)
Prioritizing blogs ahead of newsletters
What’s the best outlet for a small business owner’s blogging energies? A newsletter. Newsletters cut through the clutter, and can be crafted to sell to existing customers. Thanks to services like Constant Contact and Mailchimp, they’re about as easy to set up as a typical blog platform.
Newsletters are a great medium for two-sided offers (“Buy one with a friend, and you each get another one free!”) which can have a multiplicative effect on sales. And posting newsletters to your site gets a big chunk of the benefits of blogging, at a much smaller cost. (It’s no accident that the big group-buying companies are a small business plus email play, not a small business plus SEO play.)
Key Takeaways
These are not purely small business problems, but they’re endemic to the field. The main reason for this is budgeting and rounding: at a big company, someone might work 40 hours per week running an in-house blog and doing related activities.
If they’re not pulling their weight, that will be readily apparent. But at a company one tenth the size, an in-house blogger might spend 4 hours per week on the blog. It’s hard to count that as a direct cost, so it’s hard to measure the return on investment.
Blogging certainly isn’t dead. In fact, its liveliness is part of the problem; there are just too many great writers out there, so competing with them is hardly the optimal way to invest time and energy.
Spend that time cranking out well-targeted, well-crafted static landing pages, and promoting them through email newsletters when it’s warranted.
The net result is the same kind of work, with a much higher return. It won’t show up in fancy case studies or popular blog posts, but it will make an impact on the bottom line.
Every single person who is using PC(Personal Computer) are doing some work like monitoring, programming or stores etc. that saves it in hard disk. The hard disk can store any type of data like images, text, multimedia etc. Some times user may delete data accidentally but they need it later on. In these kind of situations, recovery softwares come into play.
The loss data occurs not only by deleting but there are several reasons, and one of them is Hard driver corrupt. In Windows Operating System, we can recover the deleted data by using some useful software tools but this procedure is not possible in Linux.
Computer’s data is not completely deleted from hard drive. It remains somewhere in some form for some time unless the user stores more data by filling up the space. The user can easily recover data by using some powerful tools. In Linux, if the user is going to use any tool for recovery like PhotoRec, TestDisk, these requires a small idea for the user about how the file deletion occured? or when the file is deleted? etc.,
TestDisk can recover lost partitions of any file system. PhotoRec is a file data recovery software designed to recover lot of files including video, documents and archives from Hard Disks and lost pictures from digital camera memory(thus, its ‘Photo Recovery’). PhotoRec ignores the filesystem and goes after the underlying data, so it still works even if users media filesystem has been severely damaged or re-formatted.
Both PhotoRec and TestDisk were DOS, Windows(9x,NT,2000,XP,2003), Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Sun Solaris and MAC OS X compatible. It can be compiled and run on most Linux systems.
This Recovery example guides you through PhotoRec step by step to recover deleted files or lost data from a reformatted partition or corrupted file system. For lost/deleted partitions or deleted files from a FAT or NTFS file system, try TestDisk first - it's usually faster and TestDisk can retrieved the original file names
Run PhotoRec executable
If PhotoRec is not yet installed, it can be downloaded from TestDisk Download. Extract the files from the archive including the sub-directories.
To recover files from hard disk, USB key, Smart Card, CD-ROM, DVD, etc., you need enough rights to access the physical device.
Under DOS, run photorec.exe
Under Windows, start PhotoRec (ie testdisk-6.9/win/photorec_win.exe) from an account in the Administrator group. Under Vista, right click photorec_win.exe and then click Run as administrator to launch PhotoRec.
Under Unix/Linux/BSD, you need to be root to run PhotoRec (ie. sudo testdisk-6.9/linux/photorec_static)
Under MacOSX, start PhotoRec (ie testdisk-6.9/darwin/photorec). If you are not root, PhotoRec will restart itself using sudo after a confirmation on your part. Sudo will ask for a password - enter your Mac OS X user password.
Under OS/2, PhotoRec doesn't handle physical device, only disk images. Sorry.
To recover files from a media image, run
photorec image.dd to carve a raw disk image
photorec image.E01 to recover files from an Encase EWF image
photorec 'image.???' if the Encase image is split into several files.
photorec '/cygdrive/d/evidence/image.???' if the Encase image is split into several files in the directory d:\evidence
Most devices should be autodetected including Linux software RAID (ie. /dev/md0) and file system encrypted with cryptsetup, dm-crypt, LUKS or TrueCrypt (ie./dev/mapper/truecrypt0). To recover files from other devices, run photorec device.
Forensics users can use the parameter /log to create a log file named photorec.log; it records the location of the files recovered by PhotoRec.
Available media are listed. Use up/down arrow keys to select the disk that holds the lost files. Press Enter to proceed.
If available, use raw device /dev/rdisk* instead of /dev/disk* for faster data transfer.
Partition table type selection
Select the partition table type - usually the default value is the correct one as PhotoRec auto-detects the partition table type.
Source partition selection
Choose
Search after selecting the partition that holds the lost files to start the recovery,
Options to modify the options,
File Opt to modify the list of file types recovered by PhotoRec.
PhotoRec options
Paranoid By default, recovered files are verified and invalid files rejected.
Enable bruteforce if you want to recover more fragmented JPEG files, note it's a very CPU intensive operation.
Allow partial last cylinder modifies how the disk geometry is determined - only non-partitioned media should be affected.
The expert mode option allows the user to force the file system block size and the offset.
Enable Keep corrupted files to keep files even if they are invalid in the hope that data may still be salvaged from an invalid file using other tools.
Enable Low memory if your system doesn't have enough memory and crashes during recovery. It may be needed for large file systems that are heavily fragmented. Don't use this option unless absolutely necessary.
Selection of files to recover
In FileOpts, enable or disable the recovery of certain file types, e.g.
[X] riff RIFF audio/video: wav, cdr, avi
...
[X] tif Tag Image File Format and some raw file formats (pef/nef/dcr/sr2/cr2)
...
[X] zip zip archive including OpenOffice and MSOffice 2007
Once a partition has been selected and validated with Search, PhotoRec needs to know how the data blocks are allocated. Unless it's ext2/ext3 filesystem, choose Other.
Carve the partition or unallocated space only
PhotoRec can search files from
from the whole partition (useful if the filesystem is corrupted) or
from the unallocated space only (available for ext2/ext3/ext4, FAT12/FAT16/FAT32 and NTFS). With this option only deleted files are recovered.
Select where recovered files should be written
Choose the directory where the recovered files should be written.
To get the drive list (C:, D:, E:, etc.), use the arrow keys to select .., press the Enter key - repeat until you can select the drive of your choice. Validate with Yes when you get the expected destination.
File system from external disk may be available in a /media or /mnt sub-directory.
Partitions from external disk are usually mounted in /Volumes.
Recovery in progress
Number of recovered files is updated in real time.
During pass 0, PhotoRec searches the first 10 files to determine the blocksize.
During pass 1 and later, files are recovered including some fragmented files.
Recovered files are written in recup_dir.1, recup_dir.2... sub-directories. It's possible to access the files even if the recovery is not finished.
Recovery is completed
When the recovery is complete, a summary is displayed. Note that if you interrupt the recovery, the next time PhotoRec is restarted you will be asked to resume the recovery.
That was true from roughly 2003 to, oh say, 2004. But blogs are no longer unique—if you’re writing a blog, you’re competing on writing quality, insight, and marketing chops.
Under DOS, run photorec.exe
Under Windows, start PhotoRec (ie testdisk-6.9/win/photorec_win.exe) from an account in the Administrator group. Under Vista, right click photorec_win.exe and then click Run as administrator to launch PhotoRec.
Under Unix/Linux/BSD, you need to be root to run PhotoRec (ie. 
Under MacOSX, start PhotoRec (ie testdisk-6.9/darwin/photorec). If you are not root, PhotoRec will restart itself using sudo after a confirmation on your part. Sudo will ask for a password - enter your Mac OS X user password.
Under OS/2, PhotoRec doesn't handle physical device, only disk images. Sorry.
