April 18th, 2007

Google to Calendar users: Read the instructions

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 7:10 pm

Categories: Google, Google Apps, Google Software Applications, Usability

Tags:

In the wake of risky Google Calendar use by corporate staff within enterprises, Google wants to make one thing clear: Google takes user privacy very seriously, especially the Calendar team.

In Google Office enterprise security snafu I discuss how sensitive information about private corporate events is being shared, unwittingly or not, via company postings within the Google Calendar application.

The Google Calendar team is on the case and writes to advise Google Apps, Premiere that is, to the rescue:

This is exactly the type of mistake we help IT administrators in organizations prevent through the business version of Google Calendar, which is part of the Google Apps platform of hosted applications. In the cases cited, each worker had taken their business event information and put it on a personal calendar that they chose to make publicly accessible.

If businesses deploy Google Calendar through Google Apps, IT administrators can choose settings so that users can only share free/busy information with outside viewers, or nothing at all.

For those corporate staffers who nevertheless insist on going their own way, the Google Calendar team reiterates the Calendar "how-to," in which Google has supreme confidence:

As for those individuals who are out there using Google Calendar for their personal calendar, their calendar information is private unless they specify otherwise. We make it clear to users what each sharing setting means. Users can grant a great degree of access — entire calendars or certain events to friends, family, colleagues, etc — without making the information fully public and searchable on the web. Currently, if you do decide to make your calendar public, a dialog box appears — "Are you sure you want to share this calendar with everyone? Public calendars appear in Google Calendar searches" — at the time you try to click "Share all information on this calendar with everyone." You cannot proceed without acknowledging that box. We also have FAQs to make sure our users understand what "public" really means.

Is that so hard?

SEE: Google vs. Microsoft Office? Yay! Google Spreadsheets gets charts

ALSO: Google aims to usurp campus email systems and Google undercuts Microsoft Office and Google Apps data risks: Security vs. privacy

April 11th, 2007

Google Engineering: The REAL story

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 3:54 am

Categories: Cell Phones, Google, Google Software Applications, Mobile, Usability

Tags:

Who said Google equals Chaos? Besides a Fortune cover story hook, that is? 

I heard Leland Rechis, Google User Experience Designer, give a methodical presentation last evening of the methodical Google Engineering development process, at a methodically run event at the NYC Googleplex in downtown Manhattan. 

Despite the fancifully spun Fortune Magazine tale last October of a Google “edgy management style,” the Google $150 billion market cap genius is not the serendipitous fruits of a company “thriving on the edge of chaos.” 

Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky even proposed a rewriting of the business card of Google’s senior vice president for business operations, Shona Brown, offering up COO for “Chief Chaos Officer,” not Chief Operating Officer.

Lashinsky on Google operating principles: 

Where failure coexists with triumph, and ideas bubble up from lightly supervised engineers, none of whom worry too much about their projects ever making money. 

Perhaps that is the Google Engineering philosophy that Eric Schmidt and company would have Fortune Magazine believe, but it is not the way that Google actually operates to fuel its $150 billion market cap.

In discussing how Google creates applications for mobile applications, Rechis portrayed a well thought out and precisely implemented Googley agile development process designed to efficiently support the realization of strategic Mountain View driven engineering initiatives. 

Rechis addressed the April meeting of the NYC Chapter of the Usability Professionals Association, hosted by Google at the NYC Googleplex.

The event marks the first in a planned Google reach out series to NYC technology organizations, as Marcus Mitchell, Google Engineering Director, told me last week: See Google challenges NYC software engineers.

After putting forth the requisite Google mission statement—organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful—Rechis described his typical challenging, and non-stop, work routine; As the Mobile team comprises engineers around the world, Rechis interfaces with collaborators around the clock: Japan, England, California…

In Google’s inaugural NYC Speaker Series presentation, Google Vice President Adam Bosworth showcased the Google need for speed: See Google’s Adam Bosworth to NYC technologists, Speed rules

Rechis reiterated Google builds for scale, speed and reliability, measuring performance “on the order of milliseconds.”

With almost half a billion monthly unique visitors worldwide, Google must deliver, Rechis underscored.

Rechis confirmed new ideas can perculate up from anywhere within the Google organization, and Google “encourages people to think big,” but the potentially big ideas are subject to stringent, collaborative analysis.

The Google agile development process begins with “upfront ideation,” Rechis said, and “story creation” follows. Once “stories are in place,” a highly managed “weekly sprint” development cycle is set in motion, with multi-functional teams working to meet supervised deadlines.

Development teams typically are comprised of a Project Manager, a User Experience Engineer and a Technology Lead prioritizing workflow. Project schedules are set and reviewed for compliance in regular and frequent team meetings:

Engineer finishes task,
Produces build for User Experience approval,
Engineer releases into build,
Build QA’d.
Build stage for release…

The Google “weekly sprint” methodology enables flexible iteration integrating user feedback during the development process, Rechis indicated.

As is the Google rule, he concluded, “focus on the user and all else will follow.”

During the Q & A, I asked Rechis:

“What is the Google Phone, when will we see it?”

Following appreciative chuckles from the audience, Rechis replied to my question:

“There is no Google Phone.” Next question.

ALSO: "Google NYC First Look: Top Google engineer talks to NYC software industry"

March 5th, 2007

Web 2.0: Are Cisco, News Corp., Viacom, Gannett really clueless?

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 8:47 am

Categories: Content, Culture, Enterprise, Google, Media, MySpace, Newspapers, Print, Social Media, Social Networking, Social Software, Social Web, Usability, User-Generated Content, Video, Web 2.0, YouTube

Tags:

In the Web 2.0 social networking “users are in control” world, mega corporations must be feeling we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t! 

I polled a few weeks back “Poor Google?,” noting a string of setbacks and a underwhelming 2007 beginning. Google, of course, is “everyone’s favorite garage band” start-up that could, and voters overwhelmingly came out in support of $140 billion market cap Google, 4 to 1.

What about mega corporations Cisco, News Corp., Viacom and Gannett Co.? 

All four legacy powerhouses are integrating Web 2.0 principles and technologies within their operations in rational and shareholder friendly ways. Instead of being welcomed for their forward thinking embrace of the power of social media and the social Web, however, they are facing ridicule and threats of legal retaliation.

Viacom of course is the “old media” whipping boy of choice, having stood up to Google’s YouTube in the name of pre-Web 2.0 standard business practices such as copyright protection and content compensation. Viacom is even facing class action lawsuit threats: "Google YouTube ‘victims’ championed by Chilling Effects, EFF, Harvard Law School"

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman nevertheless reaffirmed loud and clear to its shareholders last week: “Why Google needs Viacom, big time!” 

What about Cisco, should it follow the generous advice of Om Malik to “Stick to what you know best - plumbing hardware.”

NO, Cisco is making the RIGHT bet on Social Networks. It already boasts a Cisco enabled Human Network, as I discuss in “Andreessen vs. Cisco: Web 2.0 platform competition heats up”

Malik not only mocks Cisco for what he deems to be an ill advised attempt at being “cool,” he doubles down to assert that while social networks may in fact be cool, “This social software thing – it is too marginal, doesn’t make money.” 

In “Web 2.0 Social Networks: Cool but marginal and unprofitable?,” Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. CEO, $1 billion MySpace revenue projections make for a powerful social network cash is indeed cool comeback.

How about Gannett? It made a bold move into the social Web today: “Web 2.0 meets USA Today: Citizen journalism for the masses.”

Despite USA Today’s elaborate efforts at enabling readers to “engage our website in whole new ways,” reaction includes “USA Today social redesign-92% don’t like it,” Don Dodge and “USAToday.com goes social, sorta,” Stowe Boyd.

Are USA Today, Fox Interactive, Cisco and Viacom really Web 2.0 clueless?

NO, Gannett, News Corp., Cisco and Viacom may not be "cool," but they more than get it and, more importantly, their shareholders will undoubetdly be geting it too, soon!

ALSO: Web 2.0: Does ‘old media’ get it? and
Social Capital Theory Meets Web 2.0, by Donna Bogatin

March 2nd, 2007

Google: Who needs Yahoo Finance?

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 5:54 am

Categories: Google, Google Software Applications, Internet Data, Metrics, Search, Search Advertising, Usability, Yahoo

Tags:

Step by Google Finance step, Google is intensifying its battle against Yahoo Finance. Google is gearing up to provide “real-time, last-sale prices across all Google properties.” 

What is Google’s stock game plan? Google is inspired by the Yahoo Finance play book!

SERP results for keyword searches on public company names at Google.com now yield not only links to the companies’ Websites, but to a (soon to be) real-time stock quote for the company as well, no need to leave Google!

In a search for Yahoo, for example, the Yahoo Website is returned as the number one Google SERP.  The Yahoo Website listing in the Google SERP now features a drop-down link for “Stock quote for YHOO.”

Clicking on the link opens a stock market financial snapshot of YHOO including a stock chart with soon to be real-time stock trading data. Google also includes a handy tip “For more information about YHOO…” handily leading directly to Google Finance. 

WILL GOOGLE TRUMP YAHOO IN FINANCE?

 Loading ...

March 1st, 2007

Why Google click fraud is NOT 0.02%

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 4:32 pm

Categories: Blogs, Business Models, Click Fraud, Google, Google Software Applications, Legal, Marketing, Media, Metrics, ROI, Search, Search Advertising, Usability, Web 2.0

Tags:

It is no wonder Shuman Ghosemajumder, Google Business Product Manager for Trust & Safety, invests in lengthy and frequent public missives on how Google “protects you against click fraud,” his almost every Google backed word tends to be cited and reinforced in the media as irrefutable truth!

Perhaps the most misinterpreted element of the present Google click fraud proclamation is the Ghosemajumder affirmation:

Because of the broad operation of our proactive detection, the relatively rare cases we find of advertisers being affected by undetected click fraud constitute less than 0.02% of all clicks.

In taking Google at its ambiguous word, many in the media simply reiterated the Google 0.02% stat in relation to “click fraud.”

For example, Danny Sullivan headlined “Google: Click fraud is 0.02% of clicks.”Is Sullivan’s headline accurate? A precise reading of Ghosemajumder suggests not.

Google itself qualifies the 0.02% stat:

Put another way, for every ten thousand clicks on Google AdWords ads, fewer than two are reactively detected cases of possible click fraud.”

Google is NOT affirming that for every ten thousand clicks on AdWords ads, fewer than two are fraudulent clicks.

Google is actually saying that for every ten thousand clicks on AdWords ads, the number of advertiser submitted invalid clicks claims that Google agrees to reimburse the advertisers for amounts to less than two.

Jakob Nielsen also refutes Sullivan’s analysis of Ghosemajumder’s calculation, in lengthy comments discussing Google’s “math mistake”:

As I read the article, the 0.02% number refers to the number of fradulent clicks discovered through client-requested investigations divided by *all* the clicks on Google. This doesn't mean that 0.02% of clicks are fraud that was not discarded automatically. For that to be true, *all* clicks would have to go thorugh the manual investigation.

In other words, the percentage is calculated by using different scopes for the numerator and the denumerator. The type of classic math mistake one would not expect from Google.

The only valid percentage is the number of manually-discovered fraudulent clicks divided by the number of clicks in those campaigns that complained and were investigated. Presumably, most campaigns don't complain and thus are not investigated, meaning that they hide some additional clicks that would have been found through manual investigation.

The true percentage should be derived by taking a random sample of campaigns, whether or not they have complained, and investigate them manually.(Only investigating campaigns that complain might bias the sample, if you assume that some companies have the ability to estimate the extent of fradulent clicks in their campaigns.)

All of this, of course, assumes that the manual check is in fact capable of identifying the fraud.   

Earlier this morning I dissected various other components of the latest Ghosemajumder public proclamations to conclude “Beware Google $1 billion click fraud PR campaign” and “Google: Stingy with click fraud refunds?”

February 26th, 2007

IceBreaker social mobile software: Crush or Flush CEO exclusive interview

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 6:28 am

Categories: Business Models, Cell Phones, Culture, Mobile, Social Media, Social Networking, Social Software, Social Web, Software, Usability, User-Generated Content, Web 2.0, Wireless

Tags:

Did you ever want an ice breaker, a mobile one? 

Crush or Flush to the rescue, a new social mobile service from IceBreaker, Inc., a mobile software company that “helps people stay connected through mobile software that is engaging and easy to use.” 

What is Crushin’ and Flushin’?

Tag a hottie and they’re crushed, Find a not so hottie and they’re flushed, tell a friend and share the love! 

The Crush or Flush interactive mobile dating platform:

Crush or Flush lets you flirt, chat, and meet new people while you are on the go. You can chat people up, or just check people out and hook up your friends using your mobile phone or your computer (PC or Mac).

“Shut the Flush Up and Crush Me”

IceBreaker was co-founded last year by Michael Robinson, CEO. Prior to IceBreaker, Robinson ran the Wireless product unit for the Windows group at Microsoft and was the CEO and co-founder of renren Media, a publicly traded consumer Internet company in Hong Kong.

What inspired Robinson to develop Crush or Flush? What does he envisage for IceBreaker? I spoke with Robinson to find out.

I started by asking Robinson how a team of not-so-young Microsoft “guys” found themselves developing a business around young “hotties” hooking up?

Robinson told me his experiences running a consumer Internet portal in Hong Kong provided him with insights on how people tend to meet online. Robinson’s work with renren Media also reinforced the importance of usability in consumer facing applications, Robinson underscored.

IceBreaker CTO Eric Hennings is an experience design expert. A Microsoft veteran, he helped create products such as Internet Explorer, MSN Money, Microsoft Appointment Manager, Microsoft CRM…

Crush and Flush launched last month, the first of IceBreaker’s planned development of a series of social mobile services for consumers. Robinson indicated to me that the team’s knowledge and experience in the social applications arena along with unique perspectives on user experience are key competitive differentiators. Robinson also underscored IceBreaker’s understanding of the interaction between mobile and the PC.

Robinson told me IceBreaker solutions do not simply “shove the PC experience into the phone.” Crush and Flush translates Web based social experiences into unique, mobile centric ones.

IceBreaker on Crush or Flush:

"Crush or Flush allows users to sign up using any cell phone or computer. You create a profile, upload a face picture, and choose or create some tags that describe you (e.g. UCLA, yoga, chocolate, travel). Once registered, users can browse picture profiles based on age range, city, and interests, all for free. Every word, link, and graphic has been engineered to be simple and intuitive on even the smallest cell phone. For example, all Crush or Flush profiles are optimized for mobile viewing with face pictures and browseable tags. Unlike other “search-oriented” mobile dating applications, our community authored tag library makes it fun and easy to browse profiles by interests.

The mobile software features “Tell a Friend” technology which allows users to send profiles via text message directly to a friend’s cell phone, with no download necessary. Users can pass along those irresistible profiles with one click - because sometimes no words are needed."

Hennings on safety and privacy:

Unlike traditional dating sites where members can hide behind multiple profiles, on Crush or Flush you can only have one profile that is tied to your cell phone number. If someone causes a problem we will block his or her number and that person will disappear from Crush or Flush. The only time a user is notified is when a mutual crush has been made, at which time the users can be connected to chat anonymously within the application and without having to swap phone numbers. This eliminates the problem of users being solicited by people they are not into. Finally, if a profile has been flushed, there is no notification, so the rejection factor is taken away, ensuring a good experience for everyone.

How much Crushin’ and Flushin’ is goin’ on? Robinson told me uptake and traction since launch about a month ago has been swift. Crush and Flush counts 50,000 member profiles created and growing, with many members logging 50 pages views or more at a time.

I asked Robinson about competition in the online and mobile dating spaces and about vying for member attention.

Robinson told me people in the dating market typically join multiple services, likening the meet-up quest to using “multiple slot machines at casinos.” Robinson also underscored Crush and Flush is a “highly addictive social networking application” and “WAP has greater penetration than Java.”

Crush or Flush is currently free to consumers, but IceBreaker is exploring diverse revenue models including subscription plans, transaction based, advertising supported…

Crush or Flush has “links on carrier decks” Virgin, Cricket and AllTell. Robinson told me IceBreaker provides partners with “strong income opportunities, a large and growing market, and an experienced support team.”

Revenues for the online dating category are estimated at nearly $600M in 2006 and the mobile niche is projected to grow at 62% per year through 2009, according to statistics cited by Robinson.

Initial funding for Icebreaker’s Crush or Flush was provided through a combination of angel investors and Lightspeed Venture Partners.

Jake Seid, General Partner at Lightspeed Venture Partners:

Based on extensive user testing, and partner feedback, we believe Crush or Flush has the most appealing user experience and feature set for our target demographic, who are heavy cell phone users. As the first dating application designed explicitly for the cell phone, Crush or Flush completely rethinks one of the most compelling services on the Internet for the dynamic and fast growing mobile web.

February 8th, 2007

Are you too wired? New York may say so!

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 8:55 am

Categories: Amateur Content, Blogs, Culture, Local, Media, Self-Promotion, Social Web, Usability, User-Generated Content, Web 2.0

Tags:

UPDATE: CNET reports "A New York state senator has announced his plan to introduce legislation that would ban the use of electronic devices such as iPods, BlackBerrys and cell phones while crossing streets in major cities."

September 1, 2006: I noted in “Cellphones vs. Sex: the latest dilemma” that being always-on is not always a good thing, especially when it comes to your sex life!

Atlanta residents apparently are the most at risk, Forbes crowns the city America’s “most wired”:

Home to telecommunications and Internet service providers BellSouth and EarthLink, as well as Cox Communications, the third-largest U.S. cable company, Atlanta beat several cities more closely associated with the Web, like San Francisco, Seattle and New York.

How did Forbes pin-point Atlanta for always-on honors?

Rankings factored in the percentage of Internet users with high-speed access, the range of service providers within a city and the availability of public wireless hot spots. Of the 30 cities we measured, Atlanta ranks highest in broadband access options, third in Wi-Fi access points and ninth in broadband adoption: In June, more than 80% of the city's home Internet users accessed the Web via a high-speed connection.

How about you? Are you highly wired? Maybe it is time you turned off the always-on connection for a while. Here are eight sure signs you need to unplug (just in time for a little Labor Day weekend relaxation!):

YOU PUT A BLUETOOTH HEADSET IN YOUR MOTORCYCLE HELMET

Now motorcyclists too can benefit from wireless handsfree communication… opening a whole new realm for cellular use.

YOUR CELLPHONE IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT BATHROOM ACCESSORY

Nationwide online survey of 2,119 adults - 86 percent of who have cellphones - found that 38 percent believe it acceptable to use a cellphone in the bathroom.

YOU PREFER YOUR CELLPHONE OVER TOM CRUISE

National Association of Theater Owners ‘have to block rude behavior’ to encourage customers to come back who have stayed home to avoid the aggravation of mobile distractions.

YOU BELIEVE YOUR RIGHT TO A CELLPHONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Cell phones and pagers are not allowed in the courtrooms or in the jury room during deliberations. All cell phones and pagers will be required to be checked with the jury bailiffs or the Court Administrator’s office.

YOU BELIEVE YOUR RIGHT TO YAK IN PUBLIC IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PUBLIC SAFETY

Even using a cell phone in the bank's lobby may result in the person being asked to leave the premises…there have been holdups in which bandits were on the phone with lookouts outside while committing bank robberies.

YOU LIVEBLOGG A HOSPITAL PROCEDURE

I’m going to be liveblogging during the birth of our second child… This is just a post to get started. We leave for the hospital soon.

YOU SUFFER FROM A WORK-INDUCED TECH ADDICTION

With potential litigation in the air, will employers start screening workers before provisioning handhelds and laptops to determine if they are workaholics and a legal risk?

YOU INTERRUPT SEX TO ANSWER YOUR CELLPHONE

As a society we will continue to grapple with the question: Which takes precedence: an incoming cellphone call, or live action activity?

WHAT OTHER SURE SIGNS THAT IT MAY BE TIME TO TURN-OFF THE ALWAYS-ON BUTTON?

February 5th, 2007

Social Capital Theory Meets Web 2.0, by Donna Bogatin

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 8:12 pm

Categories: Blogs, Brands, Business Models, Enterprise, IBM, Self-Promotion, Social Media, Social Networking, Social Web, Usability, User-Generated Content, Web 2.0

Tags:

SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY MEETS WEB 2.0
by Donna Bogatin

Interactive Presentation Authored by Donna Bogatin
Presented at IBM Research Center, Tuesday, February 6, 2007 

I was invited to share my Web 2.0 thoughts with T.J. Watson Research Labs. 

In Web 2.0 and blogosphere fashion, my presentation to IBM was Web-based and live, and posted here at this Digital Markets Blog for the World Wide Web to interact with as well!

My presentation is “SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY MEETS WEB 2.0”

I presented live to IBM Research Labs Tuesday, February 6, 2007. My interactive outline is below.

SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY MEETS WEB 2.0
Interactive Presentation Authored by Donna Bogatin

Tim Berners-Lee envisaged the World Wide Web as a participatory medium from its origination. The original browser was also an editor and Berners-Lee wanted it to function as a collaborative authoring tool enabling interaction and editing.

Web 2.0 technologies, applications and business models are now sparking user participation and fostering group communication in both the personal and professional spheres. From blogs to wikis to social networking, consumers and businesses are tagging, bookmarking, commenting and sharing for personal expression and community building. 

Is the Web 2.0 phenomenon a democratizing force? Are businesses capturing and delivering value through Web 2.0 experiences? Will Web 2.0 flourish in 2007 and beyond? 

The impact of participatory media on individuals and within the enterprise is explored in collaborative social fashion via Web 2.0 tools.

SOCIAL CAPITAL: Definitions and Implications

Encyclopedia definition, the Wikipedia “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” definition that is, for “Social Capital”:

Social capital is a core concept in business, economics, organizational behaviour, political science, and sociology, defined as the advantage created by a person's location in a structure of relationships. It explains how some people gain more success in a particular setting through their superior connections to other people.

Wikipedia is itself a living example of a Web 2.0 Social Capital building endeavor in action. Wikipeida solicits individuals to contribute their personal capital to Wikipedia and thereby help develop its Social Capital value. 

What is Wikipedia? Self-description.

Wikipedia puts forth a Social Capital worthy positioning that it welcomes anyone and everyone with an Internet-connected computer to be a “Wikipedia editor.”

Does Wikipedia accurately reflect the world’s collective wisdom? Is Wikipidea a Web 2.0 Social Capital building structure to be emulated?

Wikpedia’s two co-founders do not put forth ringing, unqualified endorsements. 

“Web 2.0 smackdown: intellectuals vs. amateurs in Citizendium”: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger decries the “serious and endemic problems” afflicting Wikipedia and has set-out to create a better, “responsibly-managed free knowledge project,” Citizendium, to counteract Wikipedia’s inherently flawed “amateurism.”

“Wikipedia: Should students trust it?”: Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder and leader, advises students against relying on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia itself disclaims its reliability: “Articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism.”How can Wikipedia not vouch for its own quality? Wikipedia is operated under fundamentally flawed editorial constrtucts.

“Is Wikipedia ‘knowledge’ merely third party hearsay?”: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth… original research may not be published in Wikipedia.

The quality of “Social Capital” engendered by Wikipedia is debatable and so is the quantity.

“Social freeloaders: Is there a collective wisdom and can the Web obtain it?”: Jimmy Wales says “What does define Wikipedia is the volunteer community and the open participation.” He qualifies the extent of the community, however:

“A lot of people think of Wikipedia as being 10 million people, each adding one sentence…But really the vast majority of work is done by this small core community.”

The “small core community” is estimated to be “a geographically diffuse group of 1,000 or so regulars” that perform “the bulk of the writing and editing on Wikipedia,” branded as “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

WEB 2.0: Definitions and Examples

Tim Berners-Lee recently underscored Web 2.0 collaborative technologies reflect his original interactive vision for the World Wide Web.

Web 1.0 was all about connecting people.  It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means.  If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people.  But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.

So Web 2.0 for some people it means moving some of the thinking client side so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be as a collaborative space where people can interact.

Consumer Facing Web 2.0 “Collaborative Spaces Where People Can Interact”

DIGG: “Digital Media Democracy”? 

“As a user, you participate in determining all site content by discovering, selecting, sharing, and discussing the news, videos, and podcasts that appeal to you. 

Kevin Rose, Founder, Digg, September 2006 in Digg: Kevin Rose talks ‘The Real Deal’”:

QUESTION: You recently announced that you are changing the Digg story promotion algorithim to enhance diversity of digger input with the goal of keeping digg as useful, democratic, and devoid of misuse as possible. You also have said that users like Digg because they are contributing to true, free, democratic social platforms devoid of monetary motivations.

How does user self submission of stories jibe with “democratic” and “devoid of monetary motivations”? For example: 1) self-nominations have been problematic in democracies and 2) bloggers, writers and Websites submitting their own stories are driven by monetary motivations.

ROSE: Anyone can submit. There are 4000 newly submitted stories daily. We don’t have a problem with people submitting their own stories. It is not up to the person submitting story if it makes it to the front page. It is up to the community if that is something they want to see on the front page.

ROSE NOW: It’s been awhile since I’ve posted and I wanted to get the New Year underway by clearing up a couple of perceptions that have arisen around attempts to manipulate (game) the listing of home page stories on Digg.

Blogosphere reaction: Web 2.0: Do users matter? Typical responses to Digg’s evolution are allegations of disregard for what some deem to be Digg’s most important users and warnings of Digger alienation.

What is really going on at Digg? Isn’t Web 2.0 supposed to be about community? Doesn’t community mean every member matters, the same. Digg’s evolution means that users do matter, all users, not just a minority that believe they matter more for whatever reason.

Digg improves its free-to-the-user systems to enhance everyone’s user experience and its own company performance. A good corporate CEO thinks like a good government President: every person counts, towards the good for all the people.

YAHOO ANSWERS “New Kind of Volunteerism”?

Yahoo CEO Terry Semel claims Yahoo: We trump MySpace, Facebook 

“Yahoo! Answers has become the largest collection of human knowledge on the web in just over a year since its initial launch, having now grown to almost 75 million unique monthly users worldwide” 

What is Yahoo Answers? “It’s the one place where the world shares what they know to help each other out.”

Current questions: “How do you boil a potato the right way?,” “I found a way to make money online without risking or paying anything (multiple postings),” “Messenger is acting sketchy, why?,” “What classifies a college as “good”?…

AND from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:

“Based on your own family’s experience, what do you think we should do to improve health care in America?” Yahoo: 36,147 people tell Hillary Clinton what to do

SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE ENTERPRISE

Physical Capital = Hard assets for exploitation (Plants, equipment…) 

Human Capital = Exploits the hard assets (Management, staff…) 

Social Capital = Knowledge asset development (Training, collaboration…) 

Social Capital investments in the enterprise enhance Human Capital exploitation of Physical Capital.

Social Capital Meets Web 2.0 in the Enterprise

"IBM Lotus Connections Integrated Social Software Platform for Business; Integrated Tagging, Blogging and Professional Networking Tools Bring the Power of Web 2.0 from the Consumer Realm to the Enterprise"

The "Consumerization of the Enterprise" Promise.

Lotus Connections facilitates the gathering and exchange of information through professional networks, provides a dashboard-like view of current projects and connects users to like-minded communities. Lotus Connections has five Web 2.0-based components — Activities, Communities, Dogear, Profiles and Blogs — that help business people quickly connect and build new relationships based on their individual needs. These components help users save time by making information previously qualified by others easily accessible. The pace of learning increases as users easily find and exchange ideas with experts across their organization. Since they have access to the experience of others, users can avoid making mistakes and duplicating tasks, saving time and improving the quality of their work.

Enterprise Web 2.0 “Collaborative Spaces Where (Business) People Can Interact” and Reach Out

Enterprise Tagging Bob Zurek is Director of Advanced Technologies with IBM Information Integration Solutions: It's a tag, tag, tag World! Enterprise Next…

Del.icio.us, Flickr, blogs, and more… we are clearly in the midst of a tag explosion on the internet especially as more people engage in folksonomy creation. Tagging has many benefits but one of the key value propositions for tagging is the ability to more easily associate relevant content in the context of executing a search. However, most of this social tagging has been done outside the enterprise firewall primarily driven by  communities of consumers. I predict that with the rise of social tagging outside the firewall, there will soon be a significant rise of social tagging inside the firewall. Essentially enterprise tagging.

The value of tagging, enterprise folksonomy creation and enterprise wide social bookmarking can be very significant to an enterprise. Frankly I believe it is a huge opportunity that will be building over the next 2 years! Recently, I’ve become particularly fond of using our internally developed social bookmarking solution called Dogear that is geared towards an enterprise user rather than a general consumer outside the enterprise firewall. What I find most useful about the Dogear project is how it delivers and surfaces relevant information on demand that my colleagues have tagged while I’m using a search engine. This tagged information, essentially the social bookmark is surfaced right along side my search results.

The value of the information from inside and shared by my colleagues has been very valuable. 

Dogear

IBM Blogroll "Menus of expertise and insights from a passionate crowd"

Web 2.0 in 2007: Brands rule!, Ben Edwards, Director, IBM, New Media Communications.

IBM seeks to instill an internal “soft publishing” culture that is “liberal and permissive.” IBM is 380,000 professionals strong “within the firewall” and each professional is provided internal access to blogging, podcasting and wiki tools.

IBM Blogging Policy

IBM ShortCuts Podcasts: “Organize your digital life, a weekly show from IBM.”

“A weekly show from IBM to help make the most out of email, IM, blogs and other great tools. Contribute your own comments and expertise, or put a question to our experts: email us.”

"The Greater IBM Connection” Once an IBMer, always a Greater IBMer; The new collaboration network for IBMers past and present.

FromWikipedia to YouTube, innovation today means collaboration and collective intelligence. Now IBMers can connect through new kind of social network for business and innovation.

The Greater IBM Connection is more than an online community or alumni association. It is a new people-powered network for business collaboration. It also gives new meaning and added value to being a "Greater IBMer"—whether you are a former employee, retiree, intern or current IBMer. Through Greater IBM you can now reconnect with former colleagues and make new contacts for personal and professional benefit. Event-driven social networking Greater IBMers can network in multiple ways: online, through in-person events, and even virtually, in Second Life, Blog, Wiki…

EMAIL DONNA BOGATIN, AUTHOR

January 29th, 2007

Google's Adam Bosworth to NYC technologists: Speed rules

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 8:59 pm

Categories: Enterprise, Google, Google Software Applications, Microsoft, Usability, Yahoo

Tags:

I took Google up on its invitation to hear Adam Bosworth, Vice President of Engineering, speak on “Physics, Speed, and Imprecision: What Works and What Doesn't in Software, and Why," at the New York City Googleplex this evening.

Bosworth has held senior management positions at Microsoft, including serving as General Manager of the WebData group, a team charged with defining and driving XML strategy. While at Microsoft, he was responsible for assembling and leading the team that developed Internet Explorer 4.0's HTML engine. These two efforts are considered to have delivered the technology known today as Ajax. Before that, he was responsible for designing and delivering the Microsoft Access PC database product.

In 2003, Bosworth was awarded the XML Cup for his contributions in making XML a successful Internet standard. Bosworth’s engineering accomplishments were realized without benefit of an engineering degree. He holds a bachelor's degree in History from Harvard University.

Bosworth’s background in humanities is undoubtedly reflected in his humanist perspective on software engineering.

I chatted with Bosworth before his formal talk and asked if the title of his presentation suggested that an esoteric debate was in store. He assured me that he had nothing of the kind in mind.

Bosworth began his discussion before an attentive audience of about 250 NYC technologists with a disarming quip, beware “POFs (Pontificating Old Farts).” He then cited “Top Gun’s” Tom Cruise: “I feel the need, the need for speed.”

Bosworth put forth that most projects fail due to the human psychology component. Humans need to feel in control and in the computing environment people want to be “in charge,” he said. Bosworth cautioned that lack of speed results in computer interactions going from “fun” to being “unbearable” while fast, predictable machine responses support reassuring user experiences.

Bosworth offered the “vagaries of windows” as an example of unbearable computing he had experienced, underscoring “I am a Mac user now.” He also noted a frustration with long download time for Outlook emails.

Bosworth pointed to an increasingly large number of broadband users and massively faster chips as enabling Ajax to “get a second life.” He indicated, however, that while carefully crafted apps such as Yahoo’s email were quick enough, they could still be hard to use.

Bosworth credits the “Microsoft Help” function in part for spurring navigation-free, search-oriented solutions to “fuzzy problems.”

Bosworth concluded with remarks on “Google today”: Search is not treated as a natural language problem because there would be no room for error. In search, choices are expected and the magic is just ranking. We present a set of search results, making an educated guess. Searchers don’t know if we are right but imprecision is better than nothing. It works when the problem is huge, such as filtering all links on the Web. We save customers time, the users are always going to win.

Adam Bosworth, Donna Bogatin

January 28th, 2007

Google YouTube video search mash?

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 12:55 pm

Categories: Advertising, Business Models, Google, Google Software Applications, Metrics, ROI, Search, Search Advertising, Usability, Web 2.0

Tags:

Google’s world-famous mission is to organize “the world’s information,” all of it. 

Its “news” last week that “YouTube video results will appear in the Google Video search index” was not unexpected: 

Google search results already include links to content that's hosted on YouTube. Starting today, YouTube video results will appear in the Google Video search index: when users click on YouTube thumbnails, they will be taken to YouTube.com to experience the videos.

As is the case with many Google “news” announcements, what Google doesn’t say frequently presents the most intrigue:

Over time, Google Video will become even more comprehensive as it evolves into a service where users can search for the world's online video content, irrespective of where it may be hosted.This is part of Google's overall goal to give users the highest quality search results possible.

For example, some users who do a Google search for Martin Luther King, Jr. may want to find websites about him. Others may want to see images of him. And others may want to watch video footage…

…what does the Google YouTube video future portend?

Will the Google “SearchMash,” which “lets you search the internet in new ways,” provide any insight?

The Google “SearchMash” is a Google search testing ground, similar to Ask.com’s AskX (see “Jim Lanzone’s vision for Ask.com: ‘Real Deal’ Interview”), presenting “a different way to search the Web”:

SearchMash lets you search the internet in new ways. It is constantly evolving as we come up with ideas and figure out what works and what doesn't.

Google is testing “what works and what doesn’t” in video search.

ALSO: Will YouTube ‘King Hurley’ really share video riches? and
Is YouTube really a $1.65 billion Web 2.0 success? and
Who needs YouTube? Bolt, NBBC, Network2 on stage in NYC