Like Alex, I’ve had a post on NDAs ready to draft up any day now. But many people have said it better than I could: NDAs are, in most cases, unnecessary; as if I had the time or energy to implement your idea, assuming it’s even a good one. As with RFPs, NDAs are often a good litmus test: some of the best projects and ideas come without one.
Rachel mentioned a story about a college professor who, to paraphrase, said that “we kids have no right to complain about all the websites we use (Google Mail, Facebook) because they’re giving everything to us for free”.
Well sure, in the traditional economic sense, they are providing a lot for no monetary exchange. But that’s the whole premise of Chris Anderson’s book: Free: The Future of a Radical Price
Does that mean we have no right to complain, request new features, or demand some level of service? I think we do. Without the collective network of millions, Facebook would not exist. We are the customers because we’re paying with a different (and arguably, more sparse) currency: attention.
While email and social networks are part of most peoples’ lives, nothing scares me more than online banking and financial services. Which is why Mint.com and Intuit scare me. If I file my taxes online for free with TurboTax, is there really any guarantee it will work like it should? The penalties here are a bit greater than if I can’t ‘poke’ my friends for a day or two on Facebook. What if I spend hours each month tracking my finances and Mint suddenly loses all that data? It’s happened. Do I have any right to demand satisfaction? The way I’ve received (no) support from Mint, the answer may appear to be no. But, the way more successful companies (Facebook, Google) have handled themselves, I’d say demonstrably yes. They understand I am a “paying” customer and need to be treated as such.
Now, what if a WordPress plugin developer releases their feature to the world for free. Do they have to follow-up with every email question? How could one person be expected donate both their time in the form of a plugin and in the form of support to thousands of individuals? The latter does not scale and, more importantly, your usage did not contribute to any economic model I can perceive. Open source software is largely reputation based. Yet somehow people expect, nay, demand customer satisfaction. I see it every day.
Companies based on free services like Facebook and Google exist to make money and users are their customers. Individuals releasing free software like plugin developers exist to help grow a community and better an existing product. Somehow this subtle difference is not clear to the average user.
As software and web services become more fundamental and part of our lives, the truism of “getting what you paid for” becomes less obvious; people expect more for less. Unfortunately, there are externalities that bleed into other unrelated areas of the internet. Interestingly enough, the professor was wrong while, at the same time, entirely right.
The folks over at 37signals have put out a request for firms to apply to redesign their blog. This is a simple request with everything I need to evaluate the project: budget, timeline, scope, deliverable, and expectations. All of this is brilliantly captured within 324 words. Every day I wade through 30-slide PowerPoints and 12-page RFPs I truly wish more people were this straightforward. Frankly, in my experience, some of the simplest project requests work out the best.
Whilst the Google Street View snowmobile is incredibly cool and innovative, I worry for the small companies that are building guides, videos, 3D trailmaps, and augmented reality applications for ski resorts. Once Google Maps introduces a new feature, it almost instantly becomes the de facto standard.
The concept of “checking in” to a location using a web-based service is not new. Brightkite, Foursquare, and Gowalla have all been doing this for quite some time. But ever since Yelp has joined the fray, I can’t help but feel awkward about it.
We’ve now added the ability for yelpers to “Check-in” to businesses. Active users of this feature may receive “Regular” status of highly-frequented businesses.
This sounds great on the surface. Users who are already visiting restaurants and businesses simply indiciate that they’ve physically visited the location. It becomes fun and almost a game, much like Foursquare or Gowalla, to be one of the top patrons (Mayor or Top 10, respectively) or one of the most active users amongst your friends (Leaderboard).
But I feel this is where it gets sticky (emphasis mine):
Yelp is all about community – we have never put emphasis on any one voice or opinion. In line with that philosophy, we opted to highlight a group of people who frequent a business as opposed to just one person. “Regular” status can be achieved by frequent patronage – or checking in – of a business. This title will show up on a user’s profile, next to reviews and tips and on the business page in the iPhone app, as well as eventually on that business listing on Yelp.com. The Regular with the most Check-ins will not only be featured on that business page, but get to wear the golden badge of honor. The moniker can also be lost if patronage wanes, so Regulars must visit a business often to keep it.
Sure, the check-ins and ‘Regular’ badges are, again, a fun “lightweight” way to interact with Yelp. But, those who do check-in regularly and provide favorable ratings seem to confuse the impartiality of a review. You’re not going to be a “Regular” at your 1-star venues are you? No, so this will become a form of rating inflating (as ‘Regulars’ are likely visiting their top-rated establishments).
I understand that someone who visits the coffee shop three times may have a more well-rounded perspective of the businesses service, food, and experience (compared to someone who had one awesome or one terrible experience). But, along the lines of Foursquare, which offers “Mayor Specials“, its arguable that frequent visitors (or Regulars) may be given preferred treatment. Perhaps not explicitly, but in the way that you start to get to know the guy behind the counter on your fourth visit. Or perhaps you really get to know the bartender… but maybe not the bar? What happens to your “Real Reviews” then, Yelp?
Sure, the individuals who are ‘Regulars’ are not a secret. They are clearly indicated and you can take their reviews with a grain of salt. And sure, before, these people would have received the same treatment and written the same reviews. But, now there is more incentive to visit regularly and write reviews.
So what about when Yelp starts mixing in the Sales & Special Offers variable? If I only visited a bar because I was getting a free drink, does that change my overall expectations and, ultimately, my review? Deals for “Regulars” is certainly something to stay away from.
I don’t know, maybe this is not a major concern to Yelp. But having chatted with Alex, I’m sure I’m not alone in wondering about this. There is arguably some potential for conflicts of interest in the form of preferable treatment and new incentive to visit regularly and write (impartial?) more reviews.
The American culture has become ever noticeably celebrity-centric. Ever since California elected itself a Republican Governor it’s become very obvious to me: no matter how bad the last guy did, how does the most liberal state in the union do that? For one, Schwarzenegger is recognizable and, through his acting and body-building days, a celebrity.
Celebrities are now the focus of our media coverage. Sarah Palin, though previously a politician (and hopefully will remain that way), will always be more qualified to be labeled a celebrity: someone famously recognized in society or culture. It’s even more clear that she’s a celebrity first and foremost as she just joined Fox News as a contributor. People suspect it’s a good move as she can easily reach her target audience (Republican voters) and, thus, use it towards a next political move.
American Idol captured more votes in 2008 than the presidential election.
Celebrities and politicians will always be a gray zone (which is which), but we’ve also seen a tremendous uptick in the number of celebrity-based reality TV shows (not to mention reality TV shows, in general). People are competing to get onto television. Whether it be to demonstrate how terribly overweight they are, how well they can sing and perform, or how beautiful they can look while eating bark, these people are looking to ultimately achieve success (money, influence) through celebrity (attention, recognizability).
For many, achieving a certain level of social status and recognizability has become the definition of success (remember the balloon boy hoax). I was growing up in middle school, one of the most popularity-driven times in a school-goer’s life, as Survivor and Big Brother paved the way for reality television. Success purely meant fame in school, not grades; you were teased for doing well. So, it was justified, not refuted, by the media and adults in our society: popularity is what matters. We follow Brad and Angelina, our kids will follow Miley and Tisdale.
Taking a big leap, Charlie Hoehn and I were talking about how the metaphor is obviously applied to the internet, social media, and many startups. Take Twitter, for example, the popular online service where individuals provide banal personal responses and updates to answer “Whats happening?” Ashton Kutcher and a slew of celebrities caught on quickly: Twitter is a great, light-weight, medium for one-way communication to many people that are already interested in what you’re doing:
“The most popular guy on Twitter is a move star. New media smells a lot like old media.” -Dave Wiskus
Celebrities and already-established brands have done very well on Twitter, which in turn, has done very well for Twitter. It’s popularity has sky-rocketed in the last year and attracted international attention. So, why does every person, brand, and upstart feel compelled to get on Twitter? They equate celebrity (follower count) with success (money, influence). Unfortunately this is entirely flawed and Ramit Sethi can explain why much better than I.
“A lot of businesses focus on Twitter followers because it’s a simple number that makes you feel good. Unfortunately it’s also largely meaningless for $” -Ramit Sethi
Follow Ramit on Twitter, I’m sure he or Charlie would love to tell you more about why celebrity (followers) and success (money, influence) on Twitter are rarely related.
The traditional internet startup is typically consumer-oriented and sexy. They have to be in order to attract attention: clients, users, mentors, investors, partners, vendors, etc. This country (Silicon Valley, Boulder, New York) is full of startups and they’re all competing for celebrity (attention, recognizability) in order to achieve success (money, influence).
Internet startups can certainly be compelling and useful, but many aren’t. Instead, they’re interesting and fun to watch: thus, TechCrunch and TechMeme. Digg is the perfect example of a celebrity-driven “success”. A lot of money has been thrown at popular startups in anticipation for future success. But rarely do we see it. Instead, we just see more “celebrity” (rise in popularity, more users, more media coverage, etc.) and eventually equate that to “success.” Does digg make money? Does twitter? Heck, does Facebook? Arguably… not justifiably enough. They have a ton of users, attention, goodwill, and other people’s (investors’) money, but I don’t yet see the business behind them (hint: prove me wrong).
Which means, that anyone who wants to gain attention and influence in this arena (internet, startups) has to work to be equally as popular and just as much a celebrity as the companies themselves. No offense, but look at Andrew Hyde and Robert Scoble. Both are smart guys, well achieved, great to chat with, and fairly down-to-earth. But, I’ve already forgotten why they’re a “household” name, what propelled them to where they are now, and frankly, if they are or are not “successful.” All I know is their name, their twitter handle, and that I should pay attention to them. If I’m struggling to understand this (and I’ve talked to both of them personally), then can you imagine what this ecosystem looks like from an outsider or newcomer’s perspective? Frankly, it looks like yet another celebrity-driven culture.
I don’t fully understand the reasoning, but it seems people want to become a “success” (money, influence). When, in reality, I think they mean to achieve that via “celebrity” (attention, recognizability). I’m not suggesting the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Though, I am suggesting that it’s not as simple nor long-lasting to try and achieve one via the other.
Update: Mike Davidson has posted a great article in which he poses that celebrity bloggers and pundits are little more than know-it-alls who generate a lot of noise (and not much signal).
One of the greatest hosted services on the web is Posterous (pronounced a few different ways but consensus is: pahst-err-uhs). I experimented with the service for a few months and came to love it. If you take photos, its great. If you record video or voice notes, it’s excellent. If you blog, magnificent. If you want to do all of these (and more) in one unified place, then Posterous is the site to do it.
The concept is simple: send an email to Posterous and it creates a post. If you attach a series of photos, it creates a lovely photo gallery. If you simply write a blog post, it’s posted with tags, formatting, etc. If you include a YouTube URL, it uses oEmbed to automatically include the embed code and display the video. Easy!
The next best part: it automatically posts this content to any service you want it to go (this has been coined as “lifestreaming”). Those photos you sent? They can also natively appear as a Facebook album, show up Flickr, or even Picasa. This is genius because, if you happen to use all three services, you likely have different audiences on each service. My college friends are on Facebook, my web friends are on Flickr. With the process automated, I simply post to one spot (Posterous) and everyone is kept in the loop.
Other than the countless benefits Posterous offers, their iPhone application (PicPosterous) is one of the best photo applications I’ve used. In fact, it completely replaced the ‘Photos’ and ‘Camera’ apps for me for these past few months. With geotagging on your web posts, simple photo albums, Devin in HD became my only web destination for posting my mobile photos. It was a great experience.
Unfortunately, the site is not for some power users. Sure, you can add Google Analytics, Feedburner, and a custom domain. The theming system is robust and you can modify everything. But beyond that, you can’t do some seeming simple things: change permalinks, enable redirect rules, create pages, and the domain redirection breaks most OpenID delegation. Again, this is a small list of issues but they turned into deal breakers for me.
Perhaps I should stick to the simpler ways, and for a hosted service, Posterous has had fairly decent uptime, but I prefer hosting, owning, and managing my own content. If this was my first time getting into publishing on the web, Posterous would be a simple decision. But, I needed a little more control. Most of the slick features (oEmbed, auto-posting, bookmarklet) are already implemented as plugins for WordPress. Since I’m much more familiar and experienced with WordPress, I came back to it. I would’ve done the same if I were reviewing WordPress.com (again, a hosted service). I need my control and flexibility.
With that said, check out Posterous. The founders Sachin and Garry are very sharp guys and are constantly improving the service. 4/5 stars.
If you own and operate a website, odds are you have mobile users browsing it. Be sure you take care of these people as their numbers are ever-growing.
Hopefully you already have a mobile-friendly version of your site (for WordPress users, I recommend the Carrington Mobile theme). Bonus points if you have a mobile-friendly version but users can exit out of that version. Though the simpler, faster interfaces are often appreciated, users get frustrated if they’re trapped in a ‘dumbed down’ version of the site (especially if they have a ‘smart’ browser like MobileSafari on the iPhone).
click to enlarge
For example, on my iPhone, I open http://espn.com which smartly detects my browser’s user-agent and serves me a nice, big iPhone-friendly version of their website. But, while out to lunch, I may want to show a client the layout, design, and colors of the espn.com website. No problem, I can scroll to the footer of the mobile page and click the ‘ESPN.com’ link. Suddenly I’m out of the mobile site and presented with the “real” espn.com for demonstration purposes. Sadly, many sites don’t allow this. Don’t let your visitors become trapped in user-agent hell.
Hopefully your site already has a favicon, that nice square icon that usually appears in your browsers address bar next to the URL, or in the tab next to the page title. Favicons are an important detail that everyone appreciates. With ten tabs open, a user can quickly locate Gmail and switch to it immediately.
So why do most web developers overlook the iPhone’s Web Clip icon? It’s a simple 57×57 PNG file used when a visitor bookmarks your website and adds it to their homescreen. Your website can looks a million times more professional if you define your icon. I can’t think of a single site that looks good as a 57-pixel thumbnail screenshot. Compare the icons for the Colorado Department of Transportation’s mobile site and Colorado Snow (my website) to that of Colorado Ski Country USA and GO I-70:
Web Application icons vs. thumbnails
The Apple iPhone SDK (Web Applications) can’t make it any more simpler for you, either:
To specify an icon for the entire website (every page on the website), place an icon file in PNG format in the root document folder called apple-touch-icon.png or apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png. If you use apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png as the filename, Safari on iPhone OS won’t add any effects to the icon.
Kudos for having the mobile site, but please, create the icon.
One of the less-used features available to iPhone Web Application’s is the “fullscreen” mode where the viewport is the only item on the screen. The URL text field and button bar are completely removed. Compare CoTrip to Colorado Snow:
Compare fullscreen vs. standard
Much less space is wasted on browser “chrome” and more is dedicated to the viewport meaning less scrolling and more immediate information can be consumed by the visitor. And again, the implementation is very simple:
In conclusion…Set the apple-mobile-web-app-capable meta tag to yes to turn on this feature.
There are a number of subtle tweaks that can help optimize your website for mobile users. Again, the number of smart phones and web-enabled devices are only going to increase. Getting in the habit of implementing some of these considerations will only help your reputation. And remember, these are just three suggestions I quickly came up with for the iPhone. Think of the variations: Palm, Android, Blackberry, and so on…
I’ve been more and more interested in having Google manage, store, and maintain my entire life. Not just my digital life, but my real life. Needless to say, I’ve been using Google Profiles and have come up with a few neat tips.
<link href=”https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/ud” rel=”openid2.provider” />
<link href=”https://www.google.com/profiles/{PROFILE ID}” rel=”openid2.local_id” />
<link href=”https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/ud” rel=”openid.server” />
<link href=”https://www.google.com/profiles/{PROFILE ID}” rel=”openid.delegate” />
I have five web applications that excel in so many ways (beauty, simplicity, usefulness) and I wanted to share them in case you hadn’t heard of them yet.