LIVEdigitally

Saw Ryan’s two-part anti-IntelliTXT rant, and I have to say I’m in 100% agreement with him. Now I’m going to go one step further. I want a full-on end-user-configurable WidgetBlocker. Widgets are unquestionably slowing down page loading, so if how about putting the control in my hands? Here’s my note to my blogging friends:

I, for one, don’t much care who your recent readers were, or what you are listening to on Last.FM (don’t take it personally - it’s just not why I visit your blog). If I want to see your photos, I’ll go to Flickr. I don’t need to see the latest cartoon from GapingVoid (though they are hilarious - but I’ll go there when I want to see them). I don’t care how many feedburner subscribers you have. I don’t really mind your most recent microblog/tweet entry, but do you need it to be in a 250px tall box?

For those of you who need to make money of your blog, fine, show the ads, I understand. But if you are just doing it to get an extra $50 bucks a month, maybe you should think about decluttering a little. At the very least, how about just cleaning up the layout enough that you don’t show ads that look like regular content?

There is a reason for services like My.Yahoo, PageFlakes and NetVibes.  Maybe we can shift the widgetworld into letting people publish to each others’ pages, rather than slow down my ability to read your blog.  So, I’ve gone ahead and registered widgetblocker.com.  Anyone want to build the plugin with me?

I was writing a new blog post for Bug Labs this morning, and wanted to take a quick scan for any new links to the company.  The first page of results is basically a-ok, until I sorted by date.  On this page, here is a summary of the results I saw:

RSS Watch

Bug Labs fleshes out BUGbase, BUGmodule details

links for 2007-08-29

Bug Labs BUGbase & BUGmodules

Open Source: Bug Labs Website BUGbase and Module Hardware Details

Bug Labs fleshes out BUGbase, BUGmodule details

Bug Labs: Products

Bug Labs fleshes out BUGbase, BUGmodule details

MAKE: Blog: Bug labs - hardware, first look

Quite a Punch

Of the above list, only three are original sources of content (shown italicized). The three references to the “fleshes out..” article all stem from an Engadget post, which did not make the page.  The other repurposed story links either reference MAKE magazine or Gizmodo.

Google may have improved search and found a killer revenue model with AdSense.  But my hunch is they have singlehandedly enabled more spammers than any other company.  The part that bothers me the most is I have no doubt that they could kill off all the spam blogs from their search results (they are fairly smart people over there).  So why do they choose not to do it? My guess is it would affect their bottom line.

I guess I’m starting to feel like the Potter Stewart on this.  I don’t exactly know how to define evil, but I know it when I see it.

Last week I rolled up the sleeves, dusted off the old PHP memories, and got a little down and dirty to take a swing at a new site called AppRate.com. While watching people like Scoble, Mario Sundar, and Dave McClure add and remove about 40 applications per day (just kidding guys) on Facebook, I was getting curiouser and curiouser as to which were the “good” applications, versus the bad and the ugly. But Facebook’s “review” system is really just a meaningless comments board.

So I decided to build my own, and distribute the power back to the community. On our side, we add the applications to the site, throw in a screenshot, a little blurb, a link, and our rating. The rest is up to you. Voting is totally open with no registration needed - I’m hoping that empowering the community will overwhelm anyone’s urges to game the system. The site automatically calculates the top scoring and most voted-on items. In addition, anyone can easily add comments, although first-comments need moderation due to the power of the spambot world.

I’ve also taken a few extra moments to write a Facebook App that shows the Top 10 from AppRate. It’s not quite as versatile right now, I think it needs to link directly to the applications instead of the reviews, but that’s all I’ve figured out so far. Would love some feedback on this one, I’ve forgotten how much fun tinkering is.

At the time of writing, I have 85 friends on Facebook.  A good dozen or so are people I will likely never interact with again.  Another dozen are people I’ve met once, maybe twice, and unless they’re also in LinkedIn with me, I doubt I’d even have their contact information.  I’ve gotten friend requests from people I’ve truly never met, but we seem to have someone in common. So what exactly is it that makes us Friends?

A few weeks back, Dave Winer wrote a post that I very much agree with, complaining about the types of relationshps available when people befriend one another.  My complaint is at a much more basic level - I don’t really like using the term ‘friend’ so casually. 

In my world, a friend is someone I can call (or IM or text or Twitter), in times both good and bad, and know they’ll be there to lend an ear.  I mock Twitter above, and one of the reasons comes back down to my view of friendship - my friends know what I’m doing and don’t need to find out my updates from some Web site or service.  Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people I’m friendly with, but just because I’ve established a positive, non-stranger relationship doesn’t mean we are BFFs.

Clearly on the other side of the fence of this kind of topic is Robert Scoble, who is currently accepting friendships with anyone out there (for now).  Again, there’s nothing particularly wrong with this, but it does make me crave a new word to use for contacts, acquaintances, associates, and other people I “know”. 

I enjoy plenty of friendly relationships, and look forward to making many more in this journey called life.  I hope for everyone’s sake that twenty years from now people seek more from each other than writing on walls, tagging photos, and the occasional poke.  Well, that one’s not so bad now, is it?

Over the past few years I’ve landed onto more and more PR firms’ press lists, which generally means I get a lot of press releases I don’t really care much about. Frankly, a lot of those releases just aren’t intended for me, but it’s all a numbers game (for both sides, really, and I’m still waiting for more PR firms to act upon my blogger pr tips). Rarely do I receive releases from the government that grab my attention. Today was one of those grabs.

Headline:

United States Patent and Trademark Office Begins Pilot Program to Open Patent Examination Process for Online Public Participation

Key details:

the USPTO announced that this pilot program to test the value of public participation in the patent examination process will run for one year.

The custom-designed Web site facilitates:

• review and discussion of posted patent applications
• sharing of research to locate references to relevant earlier publications
• submission of these prior art references with an explanation of relevance
• annotating and evaluating submitted prior art
• winnowing of top ten prior art references, which, together with commentary, will be forwarded to the USPTO
• patent education to inform public participation
• forwarding of public submissions directly to the USPTO for consideration

The goal of opening up the examination process for public participation is to enable better decision making by the patent examiner and improve patent quality.

Kudos to the USPTO for taking some cues from the burgeoning citizen journalism industry.  Hm, “industry” is probably the wrong word, but that’s not important right now.

The site is fairly impressive. Lots of community features, well beyond just forums (ah yes, another online profile). After reading through a few patents and their discussions, I certainly hope that this process might help “Englishize” patents a bit more, as they are still as abstract as ever. I fear this’ll be the big obstacle to prevent more communal participation. I wonder if they too will make a Facebok plug-in? I certainly think that’s more useful than their integration with SecondLife!

There’s a ton of griping these days about how much reform is needed in the patent process. Here’s a chance for all the gripers to show their character. Get involved. Click here to share your voice in a new kind of P2P, they call it Peer to Patent (more about them here).

Let’s take a trip down memory lane, shall we?  There was a time when you’d send off an email, and not have complete confidence it would reach it’s destination properly intact.  Web site developers/managers used to have to build multiple versions of their sites just to make sure the presentation was as desired.  Also, you may recall hearing about some new cool Internet company, but by the time you got home, can’t recall it’s somewhat goofy name.  Quick check, is it 10 years ago, or yesterday?

I really can’t believe how bad the state of email is.  There’s so much anti-spam safeguards in place that it’s now “the norm” to see an email from a very trusted source sitting in the junk box, or worse yet, killed by the ISP.  This problem is exacerbated for people like myself who have independent domain names, which inevitably get taken over by automatic spam “bots”.  I use the mass-BCC trick for sending my geek dinner emails, and each month one or two people send me a note telling me it got stuck in the trash.  It is absolutely pathetic that there is no way to guarantee emails between trusted relationships.  Shame on everyone from Barracuda to Microsoft to Google for not having a solution in place, or even on the horizon.  I especially don’t understand the 28 percent of users who say “spam is not a problem” in their worlds!

Next up: Web browsers.  There’s no doubt that Internet Explorer versions 4, 5, and 6’s near-complete dominance of the browser market had its down side.  But other than lackluster performance and a weak, outdated feature set, I’m not sure what it was.  The Web, for lack of a better phrase, just worked!  Now we have IE6 and 7 on the market, we have Safari (terrible), and Firefox, all with a distributed share of users.  Sure this sounds good - Democracy In Action, yay! - but all I know is I see more and more Web sites broken for one or more browsers, all the time.  I don’t know exactly whose fault it is, but at least when Microsoft ran the show building Web sites was straightforward and reliable.

Okay, that’s enough ranting for the day, but seriously - why are we (we being the technology industry as a whole) allowing the basics to drop into such a deplorable state?  Maybe we need a little less attention on the AJAX and Wikis, and a little more on the things that impact core productivity.  It’s analogous to the cell phone industry, building really pretty-looking phones that can capture and stream TV-quality video, but still drop calls and have terrible battery life. 

But I do have hope that by 2017 it’ll be a little better.  Not much, mind you, but a little.

In a flurry of Google-related news today (and even something from Microsoft), the company announced their intent to acquire the Internet-based custom clothes company CafePress.com.  Similar to the process with last year’s YouTube acquisition, the CafePress brand will remain intact as the company begins a multi-year technology integration.  With the acquisition, Google will also initiate a new service, dubbed AdWear, enabling personalized direct advertising on clothing.

In the AdWear program, advertisers have access to select the type of clothes they want to have their ads appear on, and may even select based on the sizing.  This flexibility and personalization is a “classic Google approach” as it allows the advertisers to directly target the markets they want to reach.  Thus a company such as Trojan could purchase ads on customized thongs and pajamas, while Krispy Kreme could focus on plus-sized clothing.

“Never before have advertisers had such control over asserting their brands on a truly individualized basis,” said Google’s Marissa Mayer.  “With AdWear, companies can finally reach out directly to the markets they have sought after for years.  We expect to see numerous cost-per-clothes campaigns begin shortly after the acquisition is closed.”

In a not-too-surprising move, Google further announced that all future products made by the CafePress team will ship to consumer for free.  Two sample designs are shown below:

For more details on this and other of today’s stories, read Nick Douglas’ thoughts here.

There’s a bit of a brouhaha about Digg right now.  I read an article by David Cohn (formerly of the LD!) yesterday on the so-called “Bury Brigade” (the people who apparently hide unwanted stories from getting well-Dugg) and then today started off with a band as a Wired reporter demonstrated the effectiveness of “buying” her way onto Digg.  This caused quite the stir across the good ol’ blogosphere (read more: Boing Boing, Mike Arrington, and Mathew Ingram).

Now, while I’ve mentioned Digg a couple of times (1 2), this really isn’t the kind of right/wrong debate I typically delve into.  Why?  Well, as I advise my clients, getting Dugg might bring you traffic, but it doesn’t necessarily bring you highly relevant traffic, and can be as much a distraction as anything else.  Also, unless you are a tiny startup trying to get said traffic, it doesn’t necessarily really matter in the long run anyway.

The reason I say this is because the demographics around Digg are so wide and so varied, with a clear leaning towards “high-tech” and, well, young.  Five minutes of reading comments on any random post shows the level of mature thought and discussion is about on par with your typical AOL chat room or MySpace profile.  Again, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it also isn’t necessarily a good one.

I’ve always assumed that Kevin Rose and the Digg team have good intentions.  Never met em, I don’t listen to their podcasts, I actually have no personal reason to think that.  But something about the techie nature of the site seemed to imply a certain youthful energy combined with a bit of an innocence that made me feel that they were trying to do some good (and not in the Google way of saying they aren’t evil, yet acting the opposite).

So when I first learned a bit about the concept of the ‘bury brigade’ and the ever-changing algorithms, I had assumed the Digg system was trying to evolve to follow a “Communist” structure.  All people can participate equally.  Those who participate more regularly become more noticed and influential, but ultimately anyone can rise/fall in the “esteem” of the masses.  UPDATE: while further researching this topic, I found Mike Arrington’s article “Digg should sue Wired” is presently the #1 Dugg story on Digg, and not a single negative-to-Digg article is anywhere to be found…

When I read Kevin’s blog post today, my feelings turned from being reminded of a Communist entity, into one more akin to the KGB.  Despite all the points made by so many different people regarding Digg and burying posts, Kevin manages to write an entire post that basically boils down to not providing any new information.  He doesn’t address most concerns, he doesn’t mention plans to fix problems, he basically says “spam is bad” and “the data on this page is inaccurate” (I paraphrased).  Note that Kevin’s post is a top-10 item on Digg (at this moment).

I guess in Digg land, all users may Digg/bury equally, but some do it more equally than others.

It’s pretty easy: Become a consultant/studio who provides services that get First Life companies onto Second Life.

I say this because it’s about the only way I see to actually be profitable off the site/game/world.  The guys at Linden Labs (the company behind Second Life, or SL as they call it) are possibly the best hype-masters I’ve ever seen.  For example, today their partner Universal Pictures issued a press release with the title “‘Smokin’ Aces: Second Life Assassin’ Game Proves an Unprecedented Hit in Virtual World.” Unprecedented Hit, eh?  There isn’t a single stat of any kind in the release text - no usage, performance, subscribers, etc.  Nothing.

I’ve watched two main themes emerge on SL in the past two weeks:

1. “Tech leaders” think Second Life could be a “gold mine” (discussion: BlackRimGlasses, CNNMoney)
2. Second Life is a pyramid scheme (discussion: ValleyWag, Capitalism 2.0, Duncan Riley)

I also enjoyed Mathew Ingram’s and Webomatica’s thoughts on SL and these issues. All stats below come from one of these or the above sources.

Now I don’t know if it’s a game or a world, and I don’t much care.  I know I believe the ~100,000 users number more than I do the 2,000,000 users number.  But fundamentally it doesn’t matter to me.  When clients come to me to ask my opinion on SL, I just don’t want them spending money on it today. When I see companies like ShowTime launch a show property in SL (congrats to Akela, a former LD blogger!), I don’t understand how they cost-justify it.

Today, like it or not, SL is a small number of people enjoying their free reign in a fantasy world.  They are, for the most part, very technically savvy. There’s a lot of gaming, gambling, and sex in SL.  When I read there’s a Second Life millionnaire, I want to see that person actually cash out before I get excited.  I’ve seen virtual press conferences and read about someone finding a job there.  That’s nice.

The bottom line is there are few users and it’s a very narrow niche.  Furthermore, in order to get in as a big company, you have to be willing to invest a lot of money, since it requires a very specific skill-set.  While some might say “sounds like 1995 and the Web all over again” I point out one quick difference: when new users try Second Life, most do not return.  The same was simply not the case 12 years ago. 

So, want to take advantage of the Second Life “gold mine”?  Jump on the bandwagon and ride the gravy train as long as you can.  That is, until the pyramid begins to crumble…

I’m a big LinkedIn fan.  I’ve used it to hire people.  I’ve used it to get work.  I’ve used it to reconnect with people.  I’ve used it to help make introductions.  With the small exception of some privacy concerns, it’s one of my favorite Web applications.  And based on their growth rate, I’m not the only one (Mark Evans agrees, Robert Scoble doesn’t).  I like Plaxo too, although I use it very differently (Plaxo is ideal as a contact manager, especially if you move to a new PC every year or so like me).

LinkedIn tends to start as one of those annoying emails you see from recruiters and headhunters, as well as people who you meet once at a party but they save your card and ping you a few months later.  Over time you get a request from an actual friend or two, then a coworker and colleague.  Eventually, you start getting the emails multiple times per week or per day, then you tend to either blacklist it or succumb to the overwhelming pressure.

I saw Guy Kawasaki’s recent post on his LinkedIn profile refresh, and last night I decided it was time to spam people update my network, so I decided to try something a little different.  Rather than the standard LinkedIn greeting:

I’ve started using LinkedIn to keep up with my professional contacts and help them get introduced to people they need to contact. Since we’ve worked together and know each other well, I’d like to invite you to connect with me on LinkedIn.

I’d be glad to recommend you and put you in touch with anyone in my network. In fact, I’ve found quite a few people we both know on LinkedIn.

Basic membership is free, and signing up takes less than a minute.

Double-Yawn! Here’s what I sent out (with the subject line: “Standard LinkedIn invite”):

This is your official invitation to the worlds biggest party. Please RSVP now. It’ll be a lot of fun, I promise!

- Jeremy

ps - there appears to be a typo above, when I wrote “worlds biggest party” I meant to write “my network on LinkedIn.” Sorry for any confusion.

pps - and then, naturally, the whole RSVP thing really doesn’t make sense when taken out of context, does it? just go ahead and ignore that part. (blog note: I fixed a typo)

ppps - strike the last sentence too.

Here’s my LinkedIn page - it could probably use a little more work, but I know it represents me pretty well.  I recommend reviewing the seemingly defunct LinkedIn Notes blog for more thoughts on maximizing the use of the site.

The talk of the town today (recommended reading: IP Democracy, PhoneScoop, TechCrunch) is the announcement that Verizon and YouTube are doing a deal.  Quick summary: you have to be a VCast subscriber and from the NY Times:

YouTube said its editors would select short videos from its library for the Verizon Wireless service. Verizon Wireless said it would vet the videos to make sure they met the company’s editorial and taste guidelines.

“We’ll select content that has the broadest appeal and the highest entertainment value,” Ms. Liang said.

 The funniest read on it so far comes from fellow Canadian Mathew Ingram:

I know that Forrest Gump said “Stupid is as stupid does,” but there’s really no other word for what Verizon is doing with its much-heralded launch of YouTube video on cellphones. I mean, really. How much stupider could this get? The answer, to paraphrase Nigel Tufnel in Spinal Tap, is none — none stupider. Fred Wilson sums it up in a single word: Lame. In fact, this deal is right off the lame-o-meter. How do I lame-ify thee? Let me count the ways.

Now I agree with this as lame, but not for the same reasons as others.  Fred wrote “This deal violates the entire ethos of YouTube, not free, not open, exclusive, no community, limited, censorship, etc, etc.” and over on LostRemote I read “I don’t see this as being an especially tempting offering - it goes against the free spirit attitude of YouTube.”  These are fair points, but not what I perceive as the most important flaw in the plan.

People don’t surf to YouTube because it’s free or open, nor because of the site’s free spirit.  Actually, people don’t really surf to YouTube much at all.  Whoa, slow down - I know they serve a kajillion videos a day (or is that bajillion?).  What’s key about all this is how people use YouTube. 

They share.  They link.  They blog.  They email.  They don’t surf.

When YouTube serves 200,000 streams of a video, it’s not because 200,000 people come over to YouTube.com, and go find videos to watch.  It’s because people were sent there by friends, colleagues, and blogs.  YouTube is viral, not programmed.  And that’s the key flaw in the Verizon/YouTube relationship.

They should scrap the budget on the ‘editors’ and instead invest on building a simple technology that allows people to SMS the clips they watch to each other.  Not only will this increase usage of the service, it’ll also increase SMS traffic (something the carriers like a lot) and will also help incent new users to pay for VCast.

John Markoff stirred up the pot this weekend by launching Web 3.0, even while good ol’ Web 2.0 is still in beta (or alpha).  And I didn’t even get to go to the launch party, although I did get to spend some time in the halls of the Web 2.0 conference.  And the halls were the place to be for the conference - that’s where all the cool kids were hanging out (although I did cheer on Sling Media’s Blake Krikorian as he spoke with Beth Comstock from NBC - unfortunately John’s moderation of that session left a little something to be desired in my opinion).Nick Carr is applauding the 3.0 upgrade with his own personal style:

Personally, I’m overjoyed that Web 3.0 is coming. When dogcrap 2.0 sites like PayPerPost and ReviewMe start getting a lot of attention, you know you’re seeing the butt end of a movement. (There’s a horrible metaphor trying to get out of that last sentence, but please ignore it.) Besides, the arrival of 3.0 kind of justifies the whole 2.0 ethos. After all, 2.0 was about escaping the old, slow upgrade cycle and moving into an age of quick, seamless rollouts of new feature sets. If we can speed up software generations, why not speed up entire web generations? It doesn’t matter if 3.0 is still in beta - that makes it all the better, in fact.

Now the whole blogosphere is abuzz debating 2.0 v 3.0 v ???  Nick Bradbury states: “This weekend much of the geekosphere was buzzing about the “Web 3.0″ article in the NY Times, but from where I stand, Web 3.0 does not validate.”  Tim O’Reilly, Mr. Web 2.0 himself, isn’t on board, and Robert Scoble wrote a fun piece referring to it as Web 2007.  Dan Farber seems to sit on the fence a little bit, but then Nick at Valleywag (nice redesign) goes straight for the jugular:

In short, the Times wants to announce a trend just in case that trend actually materializes in the next few months. But don’t bet on it — Google smelled a dud and didn’t touch this story, and neither should anyone looking for the real next big thing.

Here’s a summary of what I think, in easy to digest bullet form:

• The term “Web 3.0″ will not gain general acceptance.  Web 2.0 is too nebulous on its own, and since it’s more like an “era” than it is a “version number” it makes more sense that it’ll be identified further into the future as we look back on the era past Web 2.0.
• Agents are coming.  If Web 2.0 is (roughly) all about AJAX, XML, and open APIs, then the logical evolution of implementing these technologies are intelligent agents.  Agents don’t just tell me when a stock hits a price, agents tell me that I should buy some GOOG because my peers and my portfolio reflect that I’d be interested in it.  Agents figure out that this weekend I am most interested in restaurants X, Y, and Z, and should hit a club where the DJ I like (because he spins the same music I have in my collection) has a set.  Agents use the open datasets and figure things out for me.
• Data mining technologies are important.  Anyone can collect data.  Anyone can present data.  Anyone can sort alphabetically.  Building intelligence requires much deeper data analysis where datasets are viewed as a matrix of data, where seemingly unrelated information finally comes together to make sense.  These technologies become the building blocks for the next generation of web services (agents, remember?).
• Buzzwords are getting more obnoxious.  Even if there is a new era right around the corner (which seems doubtful), do we really need to label it???

I still miss the days when you had to design your Web site to ask users whether or not their browser could support tables.  Sigh.