Good luck with the epistomological questions, Siri-chan. source: siricrazy.com

The second thing pundits exclaimed about Siri, the voice-controlled search bot on iPhone 4s, was that it poses a real threat to Google’s business model, and puts Apple as the company that could possibly unseat the Emperor. (the first thing everyone said was “Squee! New Apple thingy!”)

Pish-posh.  Apple’s Siri is no more threat to Google as the iPhone itself, a Kinect, or a new keyboard.  Siri is an input device, that’s it.  Yes, it’s “smarter” than just a keyboard, and possibly more nuanced than a Kinect, but it’s still an interface point.  “Ah!” they say, “Siri doesn’t pull from Google results, only Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, and Yelp“, and therein lies the perceived threat to Google.  This is premature, and backwards.  Those sources for Siri are all curated (I don’t like how that word is starting to get overused, but it’s accurate here) query results.  Wikipedia, WA, and Yelp have all been personally tuned in to the “correct” result by some crowd or learned scholars or something.  Google is just spitting up whatever it’s robots think is a best fit.  Siri, as a product of Apple’s obsessive devotion to quality, would only want to touch curated sources.  Fair enough.

That misses the point, however.  There’s nothing stopping Google from introducing some sort of curation process.  They certainly have the data to start something– they just need the editors to straighten things out for them.  I would submit that Google hasn’t been successful in this crowdsourcing recruitment because either: (a) they haven’t felt the need because their robots were smart enough, or (b) crowds wouldn’t feel to jazzed up about helping a company with a stock price of over $600/share.  For point (a) Siri now shows them that there may be a need to introduce humans alongside the robots.  For point (b) Google could easily part with some of all that GoogleAd money to an army of curators through some sort of affiliate micropayment scheme.  Think DMOZ, but now actually getting paid for all those slavish hours you devoted to sorting out Land of the Lost episodes.

As those data improves those results, why wouldn’t Siri start including Google in her decision-making?  Siri is not a threat to Google– she’s just a bit of a reminder they need a new suit and tie while she patiently waits for them.  Eventually, Siri will need Google just as much as the rest of us.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own, like, 50 shares of GOOG, or something, so I’m rolling in money.

I agree.  However, LinkedIn may not like where things wind up.

We all seem to understand that LinkedIn was the serious older brother to Facebook.  LinkedIn carried your full CV and business contacts, while Facebook had your college buddies and pictures of body parts usually wrapped in cotton.  LinkedIn allowed us to form groups and networks for the various facets of our careers, while Facebook let us to simply ‘hang out’.  Unfortunately, LinkedIn may have overplayed its hand: the groups were so loose, the email notifications so prevalent, and the questions so inane, that I just don’t read them anymore.  LinkedIn has a Spam problem: when every possible service vendor out there can figure out that I’m a stakeholder and decision-maker, the spam goes way up.  When service vendors start to troll questions in the groups just to get possible sales leads, the spam goes way up.

Let’s face it: if anyone spends serious time on LinkedIn, it’s likely because they’re in between jobs or trolling for a new job.  That means they’ve got a lot of time on their hands, and likely aren’t on their game as much as they should.  As a result, the discussion topics come across a bit stale, a bit desperate, a bit pumped up.  In short, quality of content suffers.  LinkedIn discussion groups are like soup in a hotel buffet line: looks good, but you have no idea what’s in there, or who’s been putting their spoon in that.

Google+, on the other hand, got the privacy part correct: people can add me all day long (and I’m already starting to see the vendors showing up when they add me to their circles), but it’s up to me whom I add.  In other words, I get to choose who sees the content I publish, and I get to choose who’s content I see.  This is the big difference that G+ learned from Twitter, and it’s just the right amount of inoculation that LinkedIn doesn’t have.

So, Weiner’s correct: my time is limited.  I want professional updates from my peers and people I admire in the business.  I want to connect with them professionally.  But guess what, it likely won’t be on LinkedIn anymore…

Yeah, this is pretty much sums it up.

My friend at Google hooked me up with an early invitation to Google+, the new social networking interface from They Who Do No Evil.  So far, I like it, if only for the possible catharsis it offers me for starting over on whom I invite/include in my circle of friends.  I don’t know enough about the nuances yet to give a full-blown analysis, and the population isn’t wide enough for me to see many of my friends yet, but here’s what I’ve got so far:

• Google+ already knows most of the people I deal with.  It has all the email addresses from my GMail account, so that makes sense.
• The first thing I was prompted to do was add all my contacts into “circles”: friends, family, etc.  I could make up my own circles, also: Mishifts, SLC Punks, Tokyo.
• Google already has my photo albums on Picasa, and taps in directly to those.  The result of this is that the photo quality seems to be quite a bit better than what we are getting on Facebook.
• Google+ wants me to create “hang outs”, which are essentially open threads/chats/webcams.  This seems to be the most direct successor to Google Buzz, and perhaps the surviving nephew of Google Wave.  I don’t see any hangouts yet, so we’ll see.
• I can “follow” people that I’ve never met, but are in the system: Robert Scoble, Randall Munroe, Matt Cutts.

That last point may be the most killer point here: Google can quickly subsume Facebook (the interface is almost identical), but then move beyond Facebook’s fatal flaw: Facebook was a response to the aliased teen anarchy of MySpace, and succeeded because of the strict requirement that you had to certifiably know everyone of your contacts.  Twitter grew up because it allowed a one-way gate of communication where I could “follow” people but they didn’t have to follow me back.  This works well for rock stars and stand up comics,  politicians, not so much.  Google+ now offers a big step forward: one common place where I can do all that facebook sharing thing with my friends, follow rock stars (like twitter), and chat/interact in real-time like I was supposed to do with Google Wave.

Prediction: Google+ may actually have drawn a winner this time, and Facebook’s $100B valuation is about to take a big kick in the nads.  Twitter, you’re going to take a hit as well.

Red down arrows go out to the following:

• Email is only getting more spam-filled by the day.  Each new email service vendor that comes online is allowing every company out there more complex ways to bother me and fill my inbox.
• IRC, always the bastion of the pure GNU disciples and Anonymous, just doesn’t work for the rest of us.
• Blogs (including this one) continue their march toward niche ionization, always sacrificing common-sense discussion for the sake of the sensational political rant or a celebrity nipple slip.

Twitter, as we saw in the aftermath of the Japan Tsunami and the Arab Spring, has really come into it’s own as a quick way to get updates out.  For that, it earns a green arrow in the right direction.  At the same time, however, we learn that 50% of tweets come from a very small set (0.05%) of the twitter population.  OCDs with fast thumbs, I guess.  For that, it also gets a red arrow.

The two winners in the communications derby are still face-to-face honest interaction and Skype.  Skype is free, it’s the default chat for an ever-increasing segment of the population, the audio quality beats a land-line or cell phone every time, and the video is just icing on the cake.  If you use skype a lot, you really start to wonder how much longer the telephone (in its current state) has left.

Did Microsoft pay too much for Skype?  Maybe.  But when you look at the long ball, probably not.

As I’ve discussed previously, when a topic is “too broad” or “too common”, the comment threads or other discussion mechanisms quickly break down into partisan hackery and senseless name-calling flamewars.  Godwin’s Law is in full effect here, but is preceded with an endless stream of poor grammar, juvenile goofs, and spambots.  This is especially true where any subjective topic is in play (which covers most news topics, and anything close to the entertainment industry).

So how might Facebook’s comment regime change things?  Well, for the simple fact that these people’s comments will (should or must, IMHO) be viewed by all of their friends on Facebook.  Would you write that screed against the [republicans/democrats/two party system] if you knew that all your friends would read your poorly worded rantings?  Would you still use all those cuss words?  For most of us, I hope not.  Sure, for some of the giftedly-miscreant juveniles, the ability to post a rant against shoegazers on MTV.com and Facebook simultaneously will only encourage such poor commenting behaviour, but we already know where those places are, and they get what they deserve.

I sincerely hope that more mainstream content sites will adopt the Facebook comment plugin, but only if they absolutely enforce the rule that all comments MUST also appear on the contributor’s facebook wall.  Let the peer-shaming begin!  (After all, tomorrow is National Grammar Day; so sharpen your knives and gerund phrases.)

Is this question on Quora.com yet?

Have you tried Quora.com yet?  It’s essentially an open question & answer board, divided out by topics.  The usual social media rules apply: you can follow threads, follow people, like answers, vote answers up and down, upload your profile, etc.  It’s also growing very quickly, going from zero to thousands of users and tens of thousands of questions in just under a year.  For me, the fascinating part is the meta-sociology that is still developing.  Quora is the proto-wikipedia, where information is still raw, subjective, and disjointed.

Early on, the site was populated by the early adopters, who by their very nature were authorities in the areas on the site and probably more attuned to the social media scene.  They were insiders.  Questions tended to be straightforward inquiries as to why an Internet business was doing something or pricing was structured or how many servers are available, and the answer usually came from a VP at that business.

Now, however, the site is full of honest inquiries that are really requests for recommendations, as well as completely subjective chit-chat questions where a “real answer” would be impossible.  For example, just from today we see “Which is the Best song by The Cure?” and “Why should I see Tron?”  These questions have no answers, they’re the aimless chit-chat (and they don’t even qualify for hipster-idiotication status like “which is more environmentally friendly, disposable razors or electric razors?“).  None of these issues would be allowed over at Wikipedia.  And they would start a fight on any single-threaded blog or news discussion site like HuffPo or BoingBoing or Fark.  How long will that last?  Is it only a matter of time (and popularity) before Quora gets swamped with subjectiveness and drivel?  Or are there structural elements in place that will contain the slosh-over?

Here’s what I see that’s good so far:

1. Quora is severely limited down to a question with several answers that get voted up or down.  This may keep the crap and joke answers under control, but voting only works to a certain point.
2. Users can follow specific topics in their feed, so supposedly it may be self-editing where I don’t need to see questions about celebrity diets or snotty book reviews.
3. Quora prompts you to invite your friends from Facebook and twitter– which is more than likely your real set of peers and friends, so you’re less likely to act like a goof with your answers.

Here’s what I see that’s not so good so far:

1. Quora is severely limited down to a question with several answers.  There’s no real easy way to build up knowledge incrementally by adding into an existing text (like there was with Wikipedia before the reference zealots took over).  Yes, one can edit a previous answer, but the site is geared toward people merely tacking on another answer.  In the end, it answers the question, but it doesn’t build up a knowledge-base (yet).
2. Users can follow specific topics in their feed, but this limits down the user’s exposure to topics where he/she is likely already an expert.  This may increase the quality overall, but it also may encourage showing-off in front of your peers.
3. Quora prompts you to invite your friends from Facebook and twitter– which is more than likely your real set of peers and friends, so you’re much more likely to act like a goof with your answers.

I’ve answered questions.  I haven’t asked any yet.  I’ve seen astroturfing (companies asking straw-man questions), I’ve seen shameless self-promotion (people asking themselves questions), and I’ve seen some solid answers.  We’ll see how this one plays out.

good luck with that.

Oh, that I could be in Washington DC at the end of the month, to attend the Rally to Restore Sanity sponsored by Jon Stewart.  When Jon was pitching for his satirical rally, he stated as one of the deliverables for the conference was for “… everyone to take it down a notch.”  I’ve already seen this phrase on Boing Boing twice since then, as well as a few other places.  I predict it will be the new meme for Fall, and is certainly welcome and several years overdue.

Social media is fun and interactive and certainly eats up more than its fair share of our precious time (which should be devoted to sitcoms and game shows), but it comes with a sour side effect: all these online threads and discussions reward the polemic, the sarcastic, the zealot, and the crank.  No one gets very far in a discussion thread with something like “well, I don’t agree with you, but I can see where you’re coming from, so I guess that’s okay.”  It doesn’t matter if we’re discussing politics, restaurants, athletes, or Star Trek episodes (it’s a foregone conclusion that “City on the Edge of Forever” is the greatest episode of all time).  Any discussion thread is pretty much dead in the water until someone throws a rock, either decrying some action or wildly praising it, which causes some factionalization.

When someone throws a rock in a discussion thread, participants have four possible fates:

1. Some people in the group will oppose the first position with equally violent counter-rhetoric.
2. Some people will oppose the opposers.  We now have our two camps of douche-bags and assholes.
3. A third group will take the sarcastic meta-position of critiquing both groups (which I am doing here to some degree).
4. A fourth group will try and come up with some rational explanation or middle ground.  Good luck with that.

None of this is new information.  We’ve had Godwin’s law for over 20 years now.  What has changed is that: a) there are a lot more people in these threads now, and are just waking up to these dynamics (your mom knows about Godwin now).  All of these non-geeks used to yell and scream in sports bars over cigarettes, but they’re on your facebooks now, and they’re going through the cycle; and b) Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are trying their damndest to give that fourth group some juice.

I, for one, welcome this new meme.  I’m going to make it a point to use it online at least three times this week.

One of Kanye's better tweets, mashed with a New Yorker cartoon

My first brush with fame was shaking an astronaut’s hand when I was fourteen (Robert Crippen).  Since then, I’ve spotted movie stars in Park City, seen musicians drinking in bars, and actually discussed golf swings with the Prime Minister of Japan.  I mention these not to brag, but to say that my exposure to fame has probably been average.

Online, however, I’ve gotten much closer.  Ten years ago I became ICQ friends with Will Wheaton (Ensign Crusher), who had some linux support questions that I answered.  We traded geek creds, and that was that.  On facebook, I’ve got some famous friends; on Twitter, me and @MCHammer are tight (at least I think so, he never answers my pleading to not hurt ‘em).

The Internet and social media have made flash stars of some people, usually not of their own volition– from the numa numa boy to that idiot crying over a rainbow.  The instant connectivity to flash something all over the globe and the proletarian accessability to publishing can make anyone a star for about 15 seconds.  No duh.

Social media may be destroying the machine that builds fame, however.  If “fame” is the marketable asset that comes from being famous, then twitter is destroying value every day.  Here’s my thesis:

• Actors used to be poor.  They could only impress and perform in front of a few hundred people in a given city, and even then, the theatre was long and drawn out.  High quality stuff, no doubt (for acting chops), but weak on the easily-remembered guitar licks.  Charlie Chaplin was the first major star, and it was a direct result of the medium of film, which could be recorded and distributed to thousands and millions of people.  Actors (successful ones) are rich because of the medium and distribution model which allows for small dollars from many many customers.
• As actors and musicians became famous via a remote medium (film is one-way interaction, as is radio, records, tapes, etc.), an entire ‘fame’ industry sprang up to provide that proxy access that fans wanted to make the connection back to their idols.  Variety Magazine, Papparazzi, TMZ, et al, are all part of this machine.  Performers have a weird relationship with it– they say they despise the machinery of fame, yet they depend on it.  The successful navigators seem to balance what information and access they dole out sparingly.  Marlon Brando never attended the Academy Awards, there’s no way he’d have a twitter account.
• Twitter now gives these performers a direct line to their fans.  Wait– no.  It’s the other way around: fans now have a direct line to the performers.  This circumvents the machine, and some performers are seeing their fame getting eaten away.

While Twitter is still technically a one-way medium (I can follow @JeremyPiven, he doesn’t have to  follow me back), the format is stripped down to a degree that allows very little of the fame machine to work its magic: no photoshopping of the photos, no glitzy typeface, no room for a publisher or PR handler in-between the performer and the fan.

Some performers have been able to do this well, mostly comics who are used to the short text of a joke.  Some are burning their capital, reduced to endlessly pimping their own book store appearances.  Still some others have suffered poorly for it– mostly the good looking ones we suspected were vapid shells all along.

There was a Vanity Fair article I read last week about Richard Burton and Liz Taylor, who seemed to be at the apex of the fame machine in it’s best golden era of the 60s, and when Pacino, Hoffman, and other “ordinary” guys started to fill the roles, ol’ Dick Jenkins (Burton) knew the game was changing, and that fame was past him now.

Known for his poetry, drinking binges, and temper tantrums, @RichardBurton would have been one helluva feed.

Nice answer. Do you know the question?

Okay, I’m likely going for triple-word-score here, but I’d like to discuss what I call “Qualitative Feature Polarization” in terms of how to read data.  I’ve talked about this before in the specific case of how to rate a sushi restaurant, but I think the principles apply to any situation where people are asked to make a judgement/evaluation.

The problems with most evaluations are as follows:

• ranking things in a straight good-to-bad list throws out too much information
• all data points are contextual, but we rarely understand the context
• the real question– and therefore the real answers– are often not present

That last point is perhaps the most important: many times we are asked to make an evaluation from data that is based on assumptions in the goals or undefined context in the business model.  For example: If Zappos were to match its prices against WalMart, it would “lose”, but in terms of service, it would “win”.  Conversely, wait times on the customer service line to Zappos are “much better” than when I call WalMart.  In an evaluation of customer service level, which one is correct?  It depends on the business model, and on the context.  In Vietnam, the US Army killed bad guys the enemy at a rate far more than our own casualty rate.  Wins used to be defined by simple body count, but we saw how that turned out.

The effficiency expert Pete Abila points out the Toyota quality method of “5 Whys” to try and find the real question (in hopes seting up an alanysis to find the real answer).  By simply asking the question “why?” at least 5 times, we can often get to the heart of the real problem, and strip away any assumptions or differences in the models we have put around the data results.

So, how to run an analysis that can provide sufficient context while also attempting to find the real issue? Whenever possible, I try to run all data in a method I call “Qualitative Feature Polarization”.  This method runs on some basic rules (which echo the problem points above):

• Smash data sets together to see if any patterns arise (but remember your college statistics prof warnings about causality and correlation).  This is the serendipity part– the chance for an “a ha!” moment that might lead to a further inquiry or data set
• Whenever possible, frame your data in left<–>right, blue<–>red, service<–>cost.  Applying such a framework to the Zappos vs. Walmart comparison would then lead you closer to the real issue: the business models are fundamentally different.
• Whenever possible, highlight the specific areas that the results and evaluation have NOT answered yet.  In other words, show that the evaluation has uncovered some results, but that the reader/listener (your boss) should specifically NOT jump to some conclusions  (unless he has a mat) based on the data.  This isn’t because the data is incomplete, it’s because the data was investigated to look at a specific issue.  Thou shalt not extrapolate your summary.
• Structure your analysis that leads you to a contextually-rich, polarized set of numbers.  These numbers should then guide the next choice of left or right, not good or bad.

Receptiveness to this analysis is a mixed bag.  If your audience is a fairly flat organization and the geeks are on equal footing, then qualitative feature polarization works well.  If the organization is fairly vertical, they likely just want “the answer.”  A good way to guage for this is the degree to which the org uses PowerPoint as a communications mainstay, and the level of complexity in the metaphors you spin out.