Google is a great source for any sort of research, if you are any good at phrasing your searches (or if you want to mess around with Boolean). But, there are many creative ways to use it for research.
Recently, there was a post discussing Link's "Excuse Me" on Reddit (Possibly the most annoying catchphrase of all time - video at your own risk).
The results were charted into a rather negative exponential looking graph, with one slight bump around 41. This kind of experiment is done a lot, with a lot of different words (I wish I could find them again, but think "lol" with lots of o's) and usually, the chart has a significant drop off in negative exponential fashion (NOT logarithmic... dunno why) with a slight bump in the 40's range.
The most popular one of these is likely the Khaaan! example, from Star Trek's Wrath of Khan. Once again, it picks up at around 40, probably due to the attention span of a person holding down a single button.
Based on eBay examples (i.e. the need for TypoHound) it's a pain in the butt to find anything spelled incorrectly - surprisingly, most people have excellent grammar. However, from this, it's clear that certain typos do work, to maximize your Google search results. Probably the bigger takeaway is that there's a very specific length of time that a person is willing to wait for anything online - so you better make sure your site loads in under that length of time. My guess is that the average amount of time somebody is willing to hold down that button is around 2 seconds, and that the space in the Google toolbar does not fit too much more than that (it fits around 50 characters, which is a bit over 2 seconds).
Just some foo...ooooood for thought
Friday, October 30, 2009
Goooo.....ooogle?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Goodbye Geocities
I know I haven't posted in a while, but I had to post something to commemorate the last day of Geocities.
Today, October 26, 2009, is the last day of Geocities. While the site is still technically open, they have not been allowing new accounts for a while now.
It's kind of sad, since many people have made their very first website on Geocities (others may have chosen Tripod or Angelfire, but Geocities always seemed the most user friendly. As the last one standing, as well, this marks the end of an era of user-created web content (that was supported heavily by advertisements).
Websites such as those, which were more or less a tutorial on how to write HTML code (either that or end up with a background that offends the eyes) are pretty much gone - it seems as if people now either create more content (building their own site from scratch and paying to host, etc.) or more specialized content (webcomic hosts like Comic Genesis or blog hosts like Wordpress are abundant, while whole site creation seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur). I guess in part it speaks to a need of specialization on the internet, but I actually think it's more a point of a) bringing like-sites together (e.g. the Blogger network is probably far more connected than all the disparate Geocities sites) and b) more user friendly creation tools that streamline site creation far more than Geocities ever did. With pretty much every site being customizable nowadays, (hello, gmail and Photobucket) the need for Geocities has really dwindled.
Still, it's a sad day in the world of the internet - the last bastion of free webhosting seems to be coming down. At least we get to enjoy a bunch of Geocities jokes like the one over at xkcd.
As a side note, I'm starting to use Tooltips in my links now - if you hover over one, you get a short text comment. It's usually unnecessary, but it allows me to be snarky so I enjoy it~
Monday, June 1, 2009
Well, Sorta
Video game developers get that they have to reach out to non-gamers... but at the same time, they really don't get it...
Microsoft's new technology is a motion sensor device that tracks your movements (much like the Sony EyeToy, I suppose). While cameras like this have been in use for a while, this promises to be the most sophisticated device yet, and not choppy (read: Crappy) as other peripherals.
Most people can see this is an attempt to subvert some of the Wii's audience (even Microsoft's not hiding that one) but at the same time, it seems as if these consoles don't care at all about actual "gamers." Part of the point of playing video games is that it can be done completely in the imagination, so people who can't do incredible things like run all day or jump really high can still do them on screen. It's an outlet for the non-athletic... but with all these motion sensor devices, I guess that won't be true anymore.
On the other hand, it could just become a nuisance. These motion sensor devices have a lot of problems (and since I, like everyone else, has experience with the Wii, it's pretty easy to see what the problems are) - you don't have as precise a control when swinging about (the time taken to process the movement is still going to be slower than the input from a button press, since my thumbs can hit like 12 different buttons in under a second), you need a certain amount of open space (so game systems in confined rooms become a problem), and programming games to make use of the technology is difficult (I'm sick of games where I have to either hit buttons on the screen, or keep up a balloon, or hit a moving target... that's what a lightgun was for anyways). If anybody has played Super Smash Brothers Brawl for the Wii, you know that the majority of good gamers just plug in an old GameCube controller for it, and I know for a fact that many Wii-mote users still just lie on their side and flick their wrist instead of doing the full movement, 'cuz it's tiring).
If people want to just lie down and use minimal movement, I fail to see how an advanced Eyetoy is a brilliant move. But then, I was also against the Wii, and through genius marketing, Nintendo has managed to capture the non-gamer market (which is substantially more affluent and apt to buy their games since 1) they have real jobs and 2) they aren't as techno-savvy so won't just download games...). This has led to a giant market share and a lot of profits... for a bunch of people who don't play games.
These people all buy Wii Fits and such, but I wonder at how many people actually buy them and never really use them (e.g. I haven't touched my Guitar Hero set for what seems like ages... and it was supposed to be huge). The Wii also has an abundance of terrible games (they're 4 times more likely to be rated as a 4/10 or lower than a PS3 or XBox 360 game), so it's pretty clear that it's an over saturated cash grab at this point.
The Wii has a lot more going for it than merely clever controls: I always assumed that the best parts of the Wii were that it was billed as a family product, something that can be played with friends, and something that was actually really cheap. Those are far better selling points (to me, anyways) than the fact that it's got a fancy controller - the "activity" part seems to be focused on parents worried about lazy children, anyhow. Not that I really have a point: I just wish to say that this new technology seems to be ingenious, and at the same time, completely unnecessary (like a Videophone... it doesn't seem like they grasp what the best aspects of the market are).
Friday, May 22, 2009
Learn and Grow
This article talks about piracy, and how an indie game developer is trying to make money through product placement (hence the NASCAR picture).
Some thoughts after the jump, as always.
So you're probably thinking that this article is about piracy. While it's a good article to read if you're interested, it's not really anything groundbreaking - yet another game developer thinks that ads in-game will work, when it's never proven to be effective anyways. I am actually of the opinion that being an indie in video game design (or music) is a good way to become bankrupt - you need a big developer just to have enough marketing to reach "mainstream" (since hardcore gamers will probably also be computer savvy enough to just download it free).
What I am actually more interested in are the comments underneath the article - to me, this is where the best research actually can be gleaned. It's like a free focus group, and it's unprompted. The discussion is complex and lengthy (79 comments in the first thread as I write this) and gives a lot of thoughts on what people think about the industry. Of particular note is that there's a lot of discontent with computer gaming, and not because they have to pay: Their complaint is that they always end up having to buy upgrades anyways, so why bother paying for the game?
I don't disagree, since I don't like the update process much, but it'd be kind of dumb to think that not constantly updating would be much better - My guess is that updates are probably the most efficient way for a developer to actually make money; they know a game is at a certain level of popularity, only legitimate copies would be eligible for the update, it weeds out pirates if there's a multiplayer feature, etc.
There isn't really an available solution that I can see, but I applaud the developer for coming up with a new method of revenue. I hope it ends up as humorous as this.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
For a touch of e-Marketing
2 Posts on hacking... not exactly the purpose of this blog, I suppose (though a company should really know it inside and out, since it poses potential threats).
For those that don't know, AdBlock Plus is possibly the greatest ad blocking program online today - and most people don't even use it (it's calculated to be used by 5% of all Firefox users, which isn't a huge percentage). Those that use it, love it though (and I really shouldn't be sharing the secret, or else companies would start making workarounds (which are easy to do, by the way).
AdBlock, however, was not purposefully meant to stop websites from generating profit - it was only meant to stop how ANNOYING some of those attempts at profits are. Currently, AdBlock is working on a fairer method of ad blocking - asking users whether certain sites they visit often should be flagged or not. I hope it goes well, since for the most part, most websites understand that ads that are too disruptive aren't going to sell anything anyways, and most people understand that the ads can sometimes even be well thought out and funny (People unblock ads on Reddit and Penny Arcade for this sort of reason).
Unfortunately, a lot of sites still don't get it. And until I stop seeing my toolbar flash with the words "3 popup windows blocked on this site," I'm not taking down my adblocker for anything.
moot of the Year
Just a little discussion about the Time Person of the Year contest.
The fact that moot, founder of the 4chan forum (probably NSFW) won the competition was funny enough, but that Time's list spelled out the phrase "Marblecake, also the game" is hilarious, showing a level of organized hacking unseen until this point.
An explanation of what "Marblecake, also the game" means:
It's a little NSFW, so I'll keep it general. The whole phrase can be winded down to "You Lost" - Hence, you lost at Marblecake, and you also lost at the game. The game is self explanatory, but the marblecake takes some in depth knowledge at 4Chan's humor (juvenile and gross). For those that want to look it up, Marblecake is an explicit (and frankly disgusting) sexual act.
So how did they carry out their little act of subterfuge to rig moot as number one (and consistent winner Rain as dead last)? They set up bots to attack the Time servers, voting their choices to the number they want. Of course, Time has captchas are there to stop such an attack, but 4chan found an easy solution.
Time's Captcha has a fatal flaw in it: If enough people get the same captcha wrong, it assumes that the problem is with the picture, and count the vote even if the wrong thing is inputted. Hence, if enough votes say that a particular captcha says something, Time counts it as correct. In regular 4chan fashion, they simply inserted the word "Penis" into every captcha, until Time recognized it as the right answer.
This proves that 4Chan, the disruptive army of Anonymous (which is the top Google choice, by the way), has increasing power as the internet takes over our lives. The only people that can stop them now is themselves...
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Empire Strikes Back
This hiatus has taken a long time, but I assume by now that this blog has been marked and is accounted for, so I'm going to go back to posting.
What better place to start than with our friends over at The Pirate Bay Trial?
In case you have not heard, The Pirate Bay (TPB) was found guilty. (Secondary sources here and here, proving it's an international event).
Not that I'm against the idea of copyrights, but I still think that the decision, and the trial as a whole, was more of a farce than a real trial. Given the information about the trial that was widely available, I'm actually a bit surprised at the verdict - it seemed any well-informed site was siding with TPB, while the majority of sites siding with the RIAA (the record companies) did not even have a clue how the technology worked. The guys from TPB did not do themselves any favors with their attitudes, but frankly I think they were in the right, so attitude or not, this verdict seems unjust... though there are going to be so many appeals that this matter probably won't be settled for a while.
So let's go over the ramifications of what just happened:
So what can we take away from all this? Some predictions on what will happen:
These are all subjective opinions though - not being able to speak Swedish (and nowhere near bored enough to go over the whole trial), I have to make due with a lot of secondhand information, so take it all with a grain of salt. But my personal opinion? It seems like the wrong verdict, it will actually be worse for the music / movie industry since they're going to lose a lot of goodwill from people hit by a depression who already think these moguls are making too much, it'll set back development for years, and the trial is simply going to drag on with appeal after appeal until it fades from consciousness - and in the meantime, another new "threat" to the music / movie industry will crop up.
Denying progress is never a good thing... In Star Wars, after the Death Star was blown up, instead of coming up with a new plan, they simply built a second Death Star. Now, is that a good or bad idea?
It feels so good to write again.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
If you only knew the power of the Dork Side...
Facebook just launched it's new upgrade... 'cuz, you know, the last one was such a smash hit. For those who haven't seen it, I'll tell you right now - Facebook is more or less becoming Twitter.
For those of you who have seen the Watchmen, then you recognize that clock - it counts down, supposedly moving ever closer to Nuclear War. This is a nice little analogy for what I want to talk about - the future of the internet.
The evolution of Facebook is but one example of websites' endless march towards singularity. Websites will start taking and integrating the best of other websites (Twitter's updatability, Google's comprehensiveness, Wikipedia's crowd-sourcing, etc.) until in the future, every good website will more or less be the same.
So what will the ideal website look like?
Synergistic - The site will likely be a hub for many different types of things; it will likely contain news/updates, history, links, commercial aspects, etc., and will be able to do everything easily. In addition, everything on the site will link together and be related in some way.
Multipurpose - The site will have many uses and many different reasons for people to see the site, whether it be to gain information, buy something, be entertained, etc. This goes hand in hand with synergistic in that there will be a lot of different things, and all of it will flow together.
Multicultural - The site will be available in many different languages, and will be useful to all of them. This could be done from the ground up (i.e. Wikipedia, which builds a different "mirror" site for other cultures, and has people from those cultures updating on their own), or after the fact (Google's translator), but in either case, it will be more accessible and accurate than current standards. Go global, or go home, I guess.
Simple - and almost painfully so. The sites will be blatantly obvious, so everyone can get accustomed to it at a first glance. Point and click is already getting this way, but things will be simplified further and further, (likely with more obvious drop-down menu headers, and a more user-friendly search bar - one that might fix grammatical errors or bring up related items that are "Close enough" to a guess). My guess? Page refreshes every time you blink.
Customizable - everyone will have their own custom site, floating all their preferences to the forefront - and probably without having to log in every time. I'm almost envisioning a universal "web" passport that lets a person sign up for every site at once (think: how Google Accounts are trending, letting you use search, mail, word processors, blogs, picture managers, etc.) Something more universal than just the "Saved passwords" feature - never EVER let your laptop be stolen in the future. But then, in the future, it'll probably be built into your brain; I know, that sounds almost biblical, but it'll be CONVENIENT and that's what matters, right?
Mobile - with computing getting smaller and more mobile, websites will have to be tailored to fit a person on the move - ads / shopping that tie in to surroundings, sites easily viewable on a small screen, and so forth (at least until said computer is installed into the person directly...). The other option here is that services themselves become more mobile, and the person becomes less mobile - meaning everything will be done at home, while staring at a computer screen. While wearing this shirt.
Interactive - the sites will seem more real than reality. You'll never want to be away from it, since it's like your best friend; it knows everything about you, it changes to suit your every need, and it looks stylish to boot. A computer crash or server error would be like the death of a family member, but that's the price you pay for having a website know that your favorite song should play in the background while you play a certain game, and that a deep dish pizza and milkshake should be mailed to your front door, while that movie you wanted to see slowly downloads to your hard drive...
So there you have it. The perfect site - simple, obvious, yet fully tailored to your needs. It's like finding your one true love, and that one true love knows your credit card number. Better make sure those IT Guys are on your side; or else, tragedy might strike!
Sorry Google.... you're not there yet.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Cutting Costs and Taking Names
The economical slowdown has negatively impacted my blogging rate - there's almost no interesting news to talk about. There seems to suddenly be a preponderance of Twitter stories that the corporate blogosphere, which I have already discussed at length before everyone else jumped onto it and killed it as a story.
So, in honor of our economy's total collapse, this article is about conducting business in a cheap and unique way.
First of all, open source is your best friend. Open source software is much more organized than most people think, and using open source software almost ensures compatibility with all other systems (while on the other hand, a Windows program is only compatible with Windows, though this is usually fine due to how much of the world uses Windows). In fact, the majority of open source software works with Windows anyways.
Open source does have a few issues; it is often unattractive and difficult to use, especially for people who have grown up using Windows software. Open source designers have a lot of different things they need to do in order to compete, but in some cases, open source software could be more useful and adaptable than commercially available programs (e.g. Drupal is likely more useful for website design than the highly popular Dreamweaver program). People who are turned onto open source also tend to try to contribute to it, a great example of crowdsourcing.
Open source programs that remain online are also effective methods for communication with your client base; blog networks such as Blogger and Wordpress have built in communities, and can host a blog for the company, while forums can be created using programs such as PHPBB. Even places like Wikipedia can positively or negatively impact your company. In fact, some companies have gone this "total community sourced info" route recently.
Interestingly enough, switching to an entire open source system (i.e. Linux) would likely be beneficial to the company from an efficiency standpoint. Everything about Linux is free (including distribution by Bittorrent, and Consumer service handled by discussion forums), and it works better than Windows with many programs, resulting in faster load times, less CPU processor power consumed, etc. etc. Linux programs all do different things (e.g. Fluxbuntu is based on the concept of using as little power as possible, while Ubuntu is built to be an open sourced version of Windows) so it may take a while to find one that works well, but for the most part, less expensive hardware is necessary to do the same things, and many programs that could cost hundreds of dollars have open source equivalents that are provided for free (i.e. GIMP instead of Photoshop)
Communication becomes simpler using online programs as well - online conferences can be held online, with games such as Second Life providing an open forum for such meetings in the past. This greatly saves on travel time and cost (though the energy savings are debatable due to the huge electrical bill it racks up - but hey, the company using the program isn't footing that cost). On a smaller scale, I have heard that Deloitte's IT unit uses MSN Messenger to communicate throughout their office - it's just more convenient.
Finally, for those still looking for work, there are a lot of random jobs that can be done online. The one that interests me the most though would likely be making money by writing online. Beyond the obvious "Writing for marketing" strategies that people have used to game forums and review sites (which seems highly unethical), there's the simple pleasure of being a freelancer, on a contractual basis. For certain companies, harnessing opportunities online like this is more effective than hiring a bunch of people for a single job - it's win/win, in a way (if you have the talent). I'd like to think that a down economy doesn't mean a lack of work or ways to improve - merely that it takes a little more creativity.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Blogosphere Transience
Just a talk about blogs. It's pretty long though - if you're just into it for the business aspect, you can skip the next 3 or so paragraphs.
So, I can't sleep again... and I decided I'd go through my bookmarks and catch up on some anime blogs (there's more than you'd think, but I only follow a few, mainly due to how often they update and by how much I respect their writing ability). Anyways, the mark of a good anime blogger tends to be how often they update - the good ones update it daily, so you're checking back often.
Over my years of fandom, I've picked up a few blogs that I particularly enjoy, (note, I'm not sure how NSFW that last one is on any given day, so you've been warned. It's never too explicit, but the content depends on which staff member is writing on a given day). Of note, 2 of them are actually "Team" blogs, picking up new members to stay fresh / update so often, though the main writers have been around as long as I can remember.
Unfortunately, that also means there are some harsh goodbyes sometimes. Blogs that I used to follow often suddenly stop updating, and posts just dry up to once every few months (if at all). In this genre of blogs, it's understandable - they always have the same reason for doing it, too. Real life gets in the way, they grow up, and they just don't have time anymore to watch anime.
It's a bit harsh to be losing your childhood like that, though - I guess for most people where I live, it's like suddenly being too old to watch Saturday morning cartoons and Disney Movies; we all hit that point, but it doesn't mean it's not depressing. And considering how big a fan I am of some of these blogs, it feels like I'm losing touch with somebody I was close friends with - maybe closer friends with than many "friends" I know in real life.
I guess this is a business blog, and not a place to get depressed over the ephemeral, so let's find some applicability, shall we? Out of this, I'd like to think that there are 2 things that stand out, for a business sense: One, closing down a blog can be an emotional thing - same goes for a website, webcomic, forum, etc... so if you build something and it gains some popularity, be careful about shutting it down, as it may hurt your brand equity in ways you can't quite measure. Second, and more important from a business sense, is that, despite all the blogs I read, these stood out, and I kept checking them even months after they stop actively updating. And I'm not the only one: If you check out the new posts on Derailed by Darry, they have hundreds of comments, despite only being updated once in like 2 months. That's loyalty - so how was it achieved? Constant updates, uniqueness that nobody else offered (his subject matter is weird, even among the weirdness that is in all anime blogs), and a talent for writing (people would read even through remarkably long posts that don't really cover anything).
He's stated in the past that his style feels like Bill Simmons, (which somebody pointed out to him - he had no idea who that was originally but concedes the styles are somewhat similar). But Bill Simmons gets paid by ESPN to do this; probably because Bill Simmons was on the forefront of the internet. He's stated that he "Bet on the internet" early, when it was just starting, and because of that, he managed to land his dream job. Jason (the writer on Derailed by Darry) started after that, and it kind of depresses me that, after 7 years of doing his blog, he's ending it without getting some sort of job offer from ADV or something. He's had a few companies approach him to promote a DVD for them or something, but was never hired like Bill Simmons was for ESPN.
It's got me thinking (and here we go on a tangent that is close but not exactly about the same thing I was just talking about) - with the flood of blogs out there now, even if he got famous in his own field, there's simply not a lot of places where independent blogging gets noticed. That also leads me to a conclusion - that corporate blogs don't work if the company is small - it doesn't particularly get any attention. Corporate blogs don't work if the company is too big, either - they're just blags as far as people are concerned, and nobody takes them seriously. So, what it comes down to is... blogs don't particularly "help" businesses anymore. Not like they used to. Before, when the internet was new and fresh, maybe, but now, the shields are up - people are more cynical than ever, and unless your blog hits the sweet spot in regards to content, company size and background, and update frequency, it's really just more trouble than it's worth to build any sort of following (in a business sense, anyways). It seems like, while first movers may screw up doing things online, at the same time, they're the ones that build a following if it goes right - people late to the party are simply shut out.
So companies can't just be hopping onto bandwagons, setting up Facebook and Twitter accounts in the hopes that people still care - they need to do something new, and something fresh. This poses an interesting problem for marketers; normal advertising won't work, and anything "new" you come with has ONE chance, before the shine wears off and it's back to the drawing board. While this means that there's likely a lot of burnout happening, I'd like to think that means there's always room for a fresh influx of people, and for people who have constant creativity - I don't know if companies have figured this out yet, though. If they have, they're going to need to explain the crummy Facebook advertising to me. Srsly.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Pirate Bay Trial Begins
The Pirate Bay Trial started today. For those who need a background primer, read this. Also, if you want to see what The Pirate Bay actually thinks about legal actions like this, you may as well read this and have a laugh.
Much like the Torrentspy trial, I can't see anything good really coming from this. For those that don't know, Torrentspy shut down, by themselves, before the whole trial really went anywhere. The only things that really came out of it is that hard drives are now permissible as evidence. Well, that and the fact that The Pirate Bay started getting bigger, faster.
It's just stupid that they're being sued as a company that made a profit off of this - they don't even make the torrents, they merely host them (which has long been their argument). I just think all the big movie / music labels are doing is ticking off Bittorrent users, who will, in turn, make more host sites anyways. AND if the trial doesn't work out, they've given The Pirate Bay a boatload of free promotion, AND free reign to expand their operation.
Until the MPAA and RIAA stop all the legal posturing, things are only going to escalate for the worse. In other words, Mininova is gonna start getting big~
Update: TorrentFreak is following the trial, and it's all over Twitter. This isn't just a big moment for piracy legislation, but a big moment in online freedom; they're being prosecuted without evidence, and if net neutrality means ANYTHING (not to mention international legislation) then I don't think the prosecution can go through. Not that that'll stop anything - we'll be seeing increased legislation either way, probably.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Information Overload
Did you know Google caches pages? (This isn't a Google article, I'm making a point here). They save copies of EVERY page online, in order for it to load slightly faster (there are other benefits, but to the user,load time is the main one). They do this, what, daily? For EVERY webpage...? Imagine just how big the internet is, and the kind of servers are needed to run this.
But just think of it - because of this, a web page is NEVER deleted; it just stays forever as a backup copy on Google's backup server. This leads to a couple of interesting concepts from a business perspective: How has this changed the landscape for data storage, and how confidential is information, really?
We'll start with the first question: Data Storage, which once used to be a rather expensive sort of thing to do, is getting easier, and soon will become almost entirely free for anybody, with the advances in Cloud Computing. Many students already use GMail and Hotmail to store / send documents to themselves (and there are many other resources) - like that, but on an even bigger, business-wide scale.
Instead of saving everything in rows and rows of supercomputers buried deep underground, it only makes sense for companies to start simply saving everything online in the vast reaches of the internet - for a price, of course. Third party companies have stored data in the past, so why can't somebody like Microsoft or Google handle it with their massive computer system? They already save everything anyways, and as long as there's no scaling issue, there's nothing really stopping them. We're already pretty much heading towards total integration anyways - consider Google Docs and Google Groups as steps towards this goal.
So if Google Docs and Groups are already there, and widely available, why don't all companies switch to it? Two answers come to mind - one, security; that's tied into the confidentiality issue, so I'll come back to it. The other is: if the information needs to be removed, HOW?!
That question is especially vital to people who are looking to enter the business world - let's face it, MySpace and Facebook pages are far too simple a way to get yourself blacklisted, due to something stupid you've done. While I keep myself *fairly* anonymous, I've seen more than my fair share of pictures from Keggers with people blasted out of their minds. It's an interesting little dichotomy - the internet makes it easy to do anything, but at the same time, it makes it difficult to do anything; one misstep, and you may have ruined yourself for life. The only way to stay "invisible" online is to watch EVERY step you take. This means erasing your identity, and then being remarkably careful afterward. Fake personas online, using public computers (under a pseudonym login if possible), using IP scramblers, etc. - it's enough to make your head explode.
At the same time, this applies to businesses, too - even WITHOUT saving all information online, companies already find ways to shoot themselves in the foot. Information that gets leaked can undercut a companies' brand equity, and make them a laughingstock, so proper disposal is paramount. Many companies simply ignore proper file destruction, which really isn't that difficult - the reason is, they severely underestimate just how easy it is to restore data. It's sometimes as easy as just freezing it. I guess it's good for competition, though - if I was a rival company, I'd just scour eBay and hope to score big.
So, being careful is around 90% of the battle - but if you clicked on those links, you know that one of them was referring to the AOL Leak. Companies that could potentially be hosts for your data, (namely, big online companies) may not have your best interests at heart, and may leak information for anyone to see. However, there is some movement towards rectifying this: the creation of a new internet! It's a novel concept, (definitely outside the box), but would it work? I tend to think not - adding security and then making it a "pay to use" internet seems to fly against the entire concept of the internet - the "free for all" free-for-all that emphasizes equal opportunity and ingenuity. Still, a "new internet" solely for the purpose of business? Endless possibilities on that one - IF you can promise absolute security, anyways.
On a last note, if a new internet DID take over, what would happen to the old one? Would it become obsolete, like an ancient language? A big upside to storing things online is that, presumably, Google or somebody would take charge in keeping things accessible - right now, a lot of data is simply lost because the file format gets abandoned (think .doc, slowly being abandoned in favor of Microsoft Word's new .docx format). People are working towards solving that issue, but a total switch to online could be a possible solution.
Just something to think about.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Why I am now a Loyal Fan.
I know it's been a while since I updated (like... 2 days! *gasp*), but I don't really have the energy to go do a whole spiel right now. I just wanted to post a little story about the online music store Amie Street.
A few days ago, I was trying to download a CD from Amie Street called "Syn" by Original Syn. Since I was pretty much the first person downloading it, it was free (like all "new" music on the site). It's a pretty cool business model that I'm pretty sure I've talked about before.
Well, the site said that I had downloaded / bought the album already when I said "buy." That was a bit weird, but it was okay by me, because they log what you buy, and you get to download it as often as you want once it's locked in (and for me, the price they locked it at was "free," so I didn't really care if I had to go through my account and download it there). However, when I got there, they said I hadn't bought it, and could not download it.
That was pretty annoying - even if it was free, I still wanted my music. I went, and emailed Tech Services about the issue, knowing full well that usually when you email a site, they never reply (honestly, I've done it a few times). Instead, they usually just ignore you, so I was just venting.
Anyways, once I sent the email, I tried again one more time, just for kicks, and it actually downloaded the album! I chalked up the whole thing to database lag, and forgot about the whole thing.
Today, I finally went through my email (my Amie Street account is under a fake name using a secondary email address, to avoid spam), and I found this email:[Login Name],
Thanks for getting in touch and I apologize for the problem you encountered downloading your purchased music from Original Syn.
Given that it sounds like you might have simply encountered a graphical bug with which button was being displayed for you, my first recommendation for you to re-download your music from your downloads page found within your Account tab at http://amiestreet.com/download
Please make sure that you are not using a download accelerator, however, as this will prevent you from downloading anything from our website.
I really appreciate you taking the time to write us and I put some extra RECs in your account as a small thank you for your patience. You can REC any song you've purchased and earn money for more music if the song you recommend goes up in price. Please let me know if there's anything else I can help you with or if you've got any suggestions for Amie Street.
Regards,
Ian Whalen
Amie Street Support
http://amiestreet.com/user/
*****************************
User Tip of the Week:
Follow us on Twitter for cheap album suggestions, blog updates, tips on using the site, and more!
http://twitter.com/AmieStreet
*****************************
For those that don't know, RECs are pretty much currency on Amie Street - you can use them to recommend songs, and the recommendations earn you cash towards other music purchases. Essentially, they tried to resolve my problem (unnecessary), and were pretty quick about it. They also ended up giving me free money, in a way. Though... if you read it carefully, it seems he ignored my original email, because the advice he gives is what I originally tried, anyways.
I was pretty surprised by it, and sent them a thank you letter. Forgot to change to my fake name, but since the only mail I've ever gotten from them is this letter (no spam, whatsoever), I think it's probably okay. They've converted me from curious bystander to loyalist who recommends their website to friends (at least for the short while while the email is fresh in my mind). And they even get a full blog post.
I'm not sure how many other companies send emails like this to their complainers, and even less who would actually give me something for complaining, but it's restored a lot of faith in me about the online service industry, which I've always been cynical about.
Friday, February 6, 2009
They Came from Corporate Space!
That timestamp proves I’m nocturnal, I think... anyways, the title is based off this.
I was talking with a friend of mine today, (Yes, I do have friends IRL!) and he was talking to me about Facebook. Namely, that when he came to Canada on exchange (from Mexico, to avoid the current increases in political turmoil), he changed his name on Facebook, so that less people would be able to find him / try to scam him.
While the topic matter in that discussion was rather bleak, it ties in nicely to what I had been planning to write about – namely, whether we need Facebook anymore.
Now, I’m a pretty new convert to Facebook (member for a bit over 2 years, which is substantially less than a majority of my peers), but I’m pretty addicted to it, (despite the changes to layout that made it difficult to navigate...).
So, imagine my dismay to hear that everyone thinks that Facebook is dying. Part of the issue may be that it has grown too big, much like Myspace had before it, but the main reason for all of this talk is Facebook’s spotty financial record. Many people invested in Facebook, under the assumption that it was a profitable through advertising means. Unfortunately, it is not. Despite Facebook’s (theoretical) new methods of generating income, a lot of industry analysts have decided to just let it go and move on to the next big thing.
Twitter, meet the corporate world.
Twitter has allure, sure; at the same time, nobody has really figured out how to make money on Twitter, (though though not from a lack of trying). It’s just like with Facebook – everyone rushing to the next big thing, without realizing that turning a social media tool into a profit tool is very difficult.
As a profit model, Twitter would worry me. I’ve talked earlier about how Twitter difficult to regulate, and frankly, the direction necessary to make it quote/unquote "profitable" is the same direction that Facebook just took.
Doomed to failure.
Twitter is a global network, like Facebook, and it’s sole purpose is to keep you updated on all your friends, in a way that is as stalker-ish as possible without actually stalking. If it becomes another corporate tool, it loses a lot of its appeal, and, like Facebook, I think that complaints about spamming would start – maybe slowly at first, but definitely starting.
The war between corporate interests and the social community’s has already begun on Twitter, with services like TweetTornado looking as if they’ll destroy the current fun climate on Twitter, (though, a lot of corporate bigwigs already have got Twitter accounts). This makes me wary... should I go sign up for Twitter now, and hop on before the wave gets too big? Or do I just wait it out, and wait for the big companies to ruin it, (like they invariably will, because when they start making a concentrated – read: oversaturated – marketing effort, they’ll keep taking and taking too much of a good thing, and it’ll collapse), and try to discover what the next big thing is?
I think some people were expecting this sort of thing to happen, though – much like when the internet first started and people would register domain names of big companies, Twitter’s got its fair share of squatters, willing to sell companies names back to them at inflated prices. Frankly, it’s a smart strategy, (one I wish I had thought of), but it’s risky, (since the big corporations will litigate, and are perfectly happy to bankrupt their opponent through legal fees).
But maybe, just maybe, Twitter won’t be overrun, and won’t die. Maybe Facebook won’t either. Even if sometimes, you think think it should. Maybe the corporations will see that it the money-making possibilities aren’t so extreme, and instead of trying to flood the social media sites with their bad ads, come up with new, innovative, (and most of all, less intrusive / annoying) methods of marketing, and learn to co-exist instead of co-opt. Corporations have their own version of Twitter, anyways... they just had to look, and maybe, just maybe, listen to what the online community has to say.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Google'd
Don't be Evil. Google's motto does not exactly inspire confidence in its users, because in truth, if Google WAS evil, none of us would be able to survive.
Can anybody deny that they have a dependence on Google? "Overgoogling" is a problem for everyone, seeing as a majority of users use Google as their search engine, (though the values fluctuate). Beyond that, Google has a much more invasive impact on our lives - not that I'm complaining (please don't remove my blog...)
The recent glitch that showed up on Google was never anything major, but has raised a lot of questions as to our dependence. Would businesses crash? Consumers, unable to consume? You, unable to.... Tube? Even without clear profitability models (I seriously don't know how they have so much money, since their applications are all free), they have managed to put a stranglehold on us. It's gotten to the point where "Google" is a verb.
Over the years, Google has gone through a lot of changes (see the video), but one thing has remained pretty constant - they are efficient and effective. It's the clear reason as to why they gain so many users, and why all the other companies emulate them: the simple design and easy to use interfaces bring users in and lock them in, leaving all the others playing catch-up. Exceedingly good products tend to do that.
But beyond the search engine, (and the spin offs), Google has gone on to create a whole bunch of other offerings, many of which have also become integral to our lives. In fact,once they bought YouTube, they have technically become not only the largest search engine in the world, but also the second largest. Yahoo's trailing along there somewhere. Not content with just that, Google's gone on to make much of the services offered by Yahoo and Microsoft obsolete, such as with Gmail. In fact, just looking at Google's little toolbar, the following things can be done through Google:
- Google Images - pretty much where all the pictures on this blog came from
- Google Maps - rendering Mapquest useless
- Google News - destroying the need for newspapers
- Google Video - technically obsolete, since now they're the official owners of YouTube
- Google Groups - making organizing class projects easier (or harder...)
- Google Scholar - which I use more than the library databases in order to find scientific and peer reviewed articles
- Google Finance - stock tickers, like Bigcharts or something
- Google Calendar - which can be embedded, by the way, in order to share a schedule with everyone who needs to see it.
- Google Documents - some people swear by this for doing reports.
- Google Feed Reader - RSS Feeds straight to Google.
- Google Checkout - breaking in on Paypal's turf
- Google Photos - Using the Picasa program that you can download (which I find painfully intrusive)
And to top it all off, you can use Google Toolbar to access them all without even having to go to Google.com (though odds are, if you do go to Google, you've signed in with your Google Account and see iGoogle anyways).
Speaking of Google programs you can download and run offline, while writing that list, my Gmail Notifier honestly went off like 5 times. Beyond that, they also let you download a searchbar to search through your documents, Google Chrome to replace Internet Explorer / Mozilla Firefox / Opera, (I bet many people download it even if it has a reputation for being a CPU drain), Android (to take over your mobile device), and even Google Gears to make their online programs work offline! (Meaning I could type my blog posts without even having to be online).
So what if Google owns everything, though? I'm pointing all this out just to show that they have an absurd amount of control, but they seem to have pretty good intentions (or brilliant marketing...)
Let's just go over some of the cool stuff that Google's been distracting you with lately:
- Let Me Google That For You - the ultimate little sarcastic smackdown to any friend asking you a stupid question. It's too bad that there are too many stupid questions, though (that might be NSFW, depending on how lucky or unlucky you are)
- Google Maps - it's an old thing, but it's got plenty of funky uses, such as tracing Barack Obama's rise to power, (or the Cloverfield Monster's path of destruction, if you're feeling a little more fictional). They even offer the chance to see under the sea, see the moon, or see Mars. Recently, they even managed to discover several new species, (which probably makes up for them flattening a Deer).
- Google Business Cards - the new rage in business card design is a "Let Me Google That For You" slap, but at your clients instead of your friends.
- The Google Bus - bringing the internet to places that don't have internet (to further spread the word of Google)
So I think you agree with me when I say, YES, we are living in a Google Earth. But no matter how cool Google is or looks, if they can crash just because a person flagged the "/" symbol as malware, we're all Google'd
Friday, January 30, 2009
Incredibly un-credible
Alternative Title: How I Stopped Thinking and Tripled the Elephant population.
Have you ever seen poll results on TV? They always amuse me, because there is a good chance that the poll was done online, and the news anchors have no choice but to act like it is a statistical fact, without dealing with all the obvious drawbacks of self selection.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're thinking - "this is starting to sound like a post about Market Research! We came here for Ads!" Sit tight; I have a point (somewhere)
Back to my original thought: the validity of "truth" online is questionable, (and yes, this does affect business and marketing and all that). Online opinion results are far too often used as a talking point on TV - "our readers say this is fact, and so it is fact for our highly paid analysts to talk about" (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, they all do this). I know it's not accurate, and I think they know it too: those polls, made up of the viewers of that channel, already have a pretty strong demographic target built in, so all they ever do is validate an opinion that is already held. It obfuscates any "actual" discussion that could be had from a topic, and the credibility goes down just about everywhere.
Stephen Colbert is the master of this; he even coined the term "Wikiality" to encapsulate the meaning. Online, what is factual / correct is based on popularity and opinion, rather than on anything solid. Reference points fade away, and people lose the ground they stand on, floating on a sea of ambiguity on what is fact and what is fake. I can't even tell what is real news anymore.
But beyond the fact that nobody can think for themselves anymore, there is a major takeaway here.
It is easier than you think to get people to do / think certain things
I go back to Stephen Colbert on this one - the man is a machine. Did you know he has a bridge named after him? At least, he should - his vote totals were 7 million votes higher than the entire population of the country that was voting. How did he get so many votes?
HE ASKED FOR THEM.
It's ridiculously simple, especially if people either semi-agree with you, or really couldn't care less (the latter describing most people doing most things that involve online polling). Colbert's done this more than once, but you can't win them all. You can win more than your fair share, though.
Colbert does it to prove his point, which I think what most ballot stuffing is about. There are others that have seemingly less noble causes as well. But the underlying marketing takeaway is that, online, people can / are willing to fight for a cause they believe in, a cause they don't believe in (to prove a point), or simply because somebody gave them an opportunity.
So how can this be used as a marketing tool online? If you read this post on Copyblogger, which I provided earlier, then you already have a hint - asking people online to spread the word actually leads to them spreading the word. Saying Please helps, too, and so does being direct; it's almost as if marketeers over-think, and don't realize that their customer does not have the patience to dig, when they could just Digg.
