October 10, 2009

The Era of the Faceless Giant Corporation Is Over

It wasn't all that long ago when the names of companies were more likely to make me think of unfeeling skyscrapers reaching toward the heavens with their steel and glass than I was to think of the people inside who made the brand stand for something, and architected the products to make them do what they do. But the last decade's increased potential for transparency and public visibility of company employees and leadership, culminating in some's active use of social media has made many of these previously faceless giants - Google, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Amazon... human. And this transformation adds a clear expansion of loyalty between these previously untrusted, unseen companies, and their customers - as those who see the companies as a collection of humans not so much as cogs in a massive machine, but instead as peers.

While many a blog post or Twitter stream has sounded out a screed against a company or a product, I am now more cautious than ever to avoid emotional critical rants against companies and brands I feel may have done me wrong. Some of this is due to the increased transparency of said companies - and no doubt a good amount of it has been my lucky position to gain access to some of the most respected brands in the business, to meet the people who make the decisions and see each day as a challenge with aims to shared goals, just like we do.

In March of 2006, I wrote a post titled "Giving Microsoft a Human Face", highlighting the work of the secretive "Mini-Microsoft", saying the blog helped provide "a clear view into the struggles and triumphs and wishes that are true in any corporation", be it Microsoft or a small business. I was similarly impressed with Robert Scoble's work while he was at Microsoft, and blogs from tech leaders like Jonathan Schwartz at Sun. Two years later, I admitted to you that I have a bias in favor of small companies, and am less likely to give the big ones a pass. But as time passes, I am seeing even the biggest companies as a collection of small units. And the more engaged they are in the blogosphere, or on Twitter, the easier it is to reach them for product feedback and customer service, the more the image of the skyscraper melts away.

In the 2008 post, I used the example of Google as a company big enough that I could still shake my fist in the event of bumps. I said, "The big guys are held to higher standards, and always will be. It comes with the territory." But even in the last eighteen or so months, Google to me has changed. Through interactions with many on the Google Reader team, discussions with Matt Cutts, and getting to know Rick Klau on the Blogger team, Google seems just as accessible as any other corporation, despite its large size.

On Friday, I spent three hours at Google headquarters in Mountain View, working face to face with Rick and a pair of skilled Google engineers, working on making changes to my blog. Though the front end should not have changed in appearance, you can see that posts now display as coming from blog.louisgray.com instead of www.louisgray.com/live as they did before. While the URLs have changed, so too has the hosting. I've been hosted on FTP for four years, and made the big move yesterday, while aiming to avoid any issues. Rick, seeing me as a good test case for an established blog with more than 2,000 posts, wanted to see if we could find any hiccups that could possibly befall other Blogger users in the same scenario. And despite the fact I was in one of the world's most tech-savvy corporations, we definitely ran into issues. Some were possibly my fault. Others were probably due to my old Web host, Register.com. But we worked as a team, and finally got it all figured out, a little behind schedule.

Google (and Rick specifically) didn't owe me any special hands-on effort. In the old way of customer service, companies tend to just post guidelines on the Web, and should you not have all running perfectly, it's either your fault outright, or you need to be hand held with customer support. But the new era of customer service, marketing and sales is transparent and personal - and this should go for every company, big and small.

Before I get any comments saying that Google reached out to me because I'm "A-List" (I'm not) or anything of that note, trust me, I know I was lucky, and I let Rick and his team know I appreciated their elite intervention. I try to provide Google and all other services I work with a good amount of customer feedback, and yesterday was as much about that as it was them providing me aid.

I look at the technology space, and for the most part, companies have made that transition from closed to open, from inert to living. I believe that many other industries could serve to improve and open up. After all, who is the public face of a company like GE? Fisher Price? McDonalds? These companies that would probably sit immobile in the face of a hate-filled rant still look like buildings to me. And I believe that they too will open up. The era of being dark and hidden and untrusted is over.

FTC Disclosure: Google let me eat lunch at their place for free yesterday. It was yummy.

Searchtastic Aims To Extend Twitter Search Results With New Engine


Practically everybody is putting their data into Twitter these days. With an increasing velocity of tweets, it has become an escalating challenge to find data from this real-time information archive, made even more difficult by the limitations of the company's default search engine, which only displays information in the last week to two weeks. With others, including Twazzup, Collecta and OneRiot, trying their hand at finding the information in Tweetspace, a new engine has launched today, called Searchtastic. As it's so new, it's more "search" than "-tastic", but they promise future features in the coming weeks that will help the engine improve.

Searchtastic bills itself as "smart Twitter search". On launch day, there are really two major features that would have you using Searchtastic over the standard Twitter search.

The first benefit is that Searchtastic is archiving tweets longer than Twitter search (as discussed previously, there are issues). This means that tweets from more than two weeks ago may be available on their engine, but not the standard interface, giving your more results and data to work with.

The second benefit is that if you want to hone your search by adding or removing keywords, to do so is very simple. Click on keywords in search results to add them to your next query, or click on a word you just searched to remove it.


Searchtastic Finds Tweets on "Tweetie" from @scobleizer

Searchtastic also says its ability to provide "instant access to the most followed users" on their top 100 page is a feature, but I don't care so much for that, and there are other places to find beneficiaries of the controversial Suggested User List (SUL).


A Familiar Sight on Searchtastic

I tested Searchtastic, comparing it to the standard Twitter search, and it definitely provides more total results, going back longer, to the beginning of September, which is likely when they started indexing. But searches took longer to execute, and you certainly don't get any of the "trending topics" that bubble to the top of Twitter elsewhere. In fact, searching on "LSU", a currently trending topic on Twitter, without specifying a user name, simply provided me a bunch of tweets from PerezHilton complaining that "#TmobileStillSucks". So that was not what I had wanted.


Searchtastic Finds Tweets on "Spam" from @mattcutts


Adding the term "Twitter" to "Spam" from @mattcutts

The utility of Searchtastic looks to be when you want to search a specific user for a specific tweet, or see what that person has said about a particular topic. It's not a substitute for searching all of Twitter globally, and the highlighting of "top users" seems redundant. But if Twitter Search is drawing a blank where you know there should be results, maybe Searchtastic has it.

October 09, 2009

Why And Where We Share: Distributing Quality With Impact, Intent

Regardless of whether you first came in contact with my content here, or through other streams, you know that the vast majority of my online life has to do with the creation, filtering and distribution of information. In addition to authoring new stories here on the blog, I try to be an active and avid consumer of RSS feeds, and updates from social networks including FriendFeed, Ecademy, Socialmedian, Twitter and Facebook. In turn, I make a very serious attempt to redistribute the best content of all that I see back out to these same networks. Even if the volume of data I am taking in and pushing back out is high, it is certainly not random. Every time I hit a "share" button, or I hit "post", it is calculated. I thought it might be a good idea to discuss this a bit more.

First, some statistics.


20,000 Items Isn't That Many If Divided In Smaller Chunks


In the last 30 days, according to Google Reader, from the 703 subscriptions I follow, I read 20,090 items and shared 766 items. This means that on an average day, I am taking in 700 to 900 items (less on weekends) and sharing about 25 to 30 items.

This data, for the last 30 days, shows 3.8% of all items get shared, or just under 1 in every 25 posts. And while it may seem that 703 subscriptions is a lot, it is, in my opinion, a very healthy segment of the tech Web. If subscriptions that I follow go too long without relevant data worth sharing, I do remove them from my feeds, while also always being on the lookout for new sources. So you can consider my shares to be the top 4 percent of what I think is the top 20 percent of tech news, making the result greater still.

Second, the flow.

When I hit "share" in Google Reader, a few things happen.
  1. The item is added to my shared link blog.
  2. The item is available for comments within Google Reader for approved contacts.
  3. The items are shared on my FriendFeed, Facebook and Socialmedian.
  4. The items are sent to the @lgshareditems account on Twitter.
One button hits as many as five networks - so yes, there is impact. I am cognizant that if I share too many items overall, or share too many off-topic items, it will harm the quality of my downstream feeds, and people will either stop engaging or unsubscribe.

 
On Twitter, Brett Kelly Noticed A Bump in Engagement

But there's more to sharing than Google Reader, as you know. Sharing can also be done through comments and likes on FriendFeed, which bump a story back to the top of the feed, and expose it to other people. The greater your following, the greater the potential for downstream impact, meaning if you have an active account, then it's possible to look back on your activity and see others taking action on those items - much like the wake of a speedboat on a lake, as your zipping along leaves ripples behind. The retweeting phenomenon on Twitter has been well documented. Also, I share the bookmarks I make on Delicious to the same social networks - FriendFeed, Facebook and Twitter. One save hits four places. I wouldn't take so much effort to get the flow right if I didn't know that it had impact. One of the pleasing byproducts of being consistent and focused is that content creators say they get a traffic or visibility boost from my shares. My goal is to reward good writing, reporting and quality, and to also reward those who have opted into the streams, that they receive quality content.

 
 
Holden Page Saw His RSS Numbers Spike


So how do I decide?

1) I Share Items On Topics Relevant to the Downstream Audience

The first filter on whether a story gets shared is if it is on a topic I assume my readers would find interesting. Even if I may be interested in baseball, humor, politics or food entries, they don't get shared into the downstream feeds because the readers are looking for news on technology. Most specifically, coverage of new startups, Silicon Valley companies, social media and networking tools, RSS, business and statistics data.


2) I Share Originating Sources Where Possible, Not the Echo

If a company like Apple, Google, Digg, Facebook, or Twitter makes a new entry, it is no doubt going to be respun by dozens of downstream tech writers. If I see this happening, I will find the original unfiltered post and share that to bring their message directly.


3) I Share Items That Are the First to Report News Or Have A Unique Angle

In the tech blogosphere, it is not too uncommon for many different sites to talk about the same story - especially if it is about one of the most-popular companies. In the event of massive duplication, I try to share the first of the respected sites that gets the story right and done well. Because of this "echo chamber", I am extra focused on finding new stories from people who are going against the grain - covering new companies that don't usually get a lot of ink, or are thinking about the day's news in a different way. I also am happy to reward sites that get unique Q&As or interviews with tech leaders, or are the first to pull down data from the SEC around funding or M&A activity - passing on true journalism rather than opinion.


4) I Share Items That Targeted Quality Over Speed

It is easy to tell when a blog post was quickly slapped together to be first out the door, or just to hit a post quota (a common issue at multi-author sites that are ad-driven). As soon as I can ascertain that a post is on topic, has an interesting angle and has been thoroughly researched, it is a pleasure to send it downstream. This is even more true when a more obscure blog acts in a mature way and deserves to be highlighted.


5) I Avoid Sharing Items That Are Built for Controversy

As I have tried to do here, I aim to keep my downstream feeds argument and rhetoric free, wherever possible. If headlines and photos and angles on stories are overwrought for the sake of driving debate, controversy or nonsense, they are skipped. I do not want to reward bad behavior.

In Conclusion:

I talk a lot about sharing and data flow on this blog, because I recognize the new world of blogging goes beyond these pages. Today's best bloggers are participating in the downstream networks, both as content creators and as information filters. It takes effort to be in the first wave of filtering, to try and separate the wheat from the chaff, and drive quality to other networks, but it is very rewarding to know it provides value. Over time, I look forward to finding even better ways to filter, organize and display third party content that has passed through me first.

October 08, 2009

Benchmark Capital's Twitter Gets Hacked to Hawk Plasma TVs

Benchmark Capital had a string of profitable exits earlier this summer, culminating in a big day that saw FriendFeed sold to Facebook and SpringSource acquired by VMware on the same day this August. The firm is among the most respected in Silicon Valley, and a leading name on Sand Hill Road.

That's why I was more than a little surprised tonight to see Benchmark's official Twitter account start to spout promotions for flat-screen TVs. Not only did it look fishy, but it was done "from API", while all updates on the account to date have been "from Web", which indicates that the activity took place automatically, and not by hand.



VCs Typically Promote Their Funds and Portfolio, Not TVs...

Whether one of Benchmark's multiple Twitter users accidentally clicked through to some phishing scam, or if some bot just managed to get lucky, is unknown, but it looks like the damage was undone relatively quickly. That there are malicious characters out there trying to hack into Twitter is no surprise, but it's always eye-opening when a big name gets caught. Maybe it's time they change their password.


To be fair, many other accounts look to also have been compromised by this "Free Plasma" bot. See Twitter Search for many more affected.