Commented on “What Google Buzz needs to Survive | IT World” as follows.
Agree with number 1 – In my case, a thread that I commented on keeps appearing in my Buzz as new people comment on it, even though I didnt ‘follow’ anybody. I like the part you mention about the ‘Mute button’ that it should be one click way to do ‘line-item-veto’ rather than being buried in a menu (as it is now). Further, there should be a way to “Archive” a line item of interest. Currently the only way to do this is to use “Link to this post” and bookmark the separate url.
Update: I should have been more clear on this. I commented on a Buzz post somewhere on the web, and when other people comment on the same thing, I get an Email! Wouldnt a “new” indication in the Buzz menu item be enough at the left? I know there are ways to ‘filter’ the Buzz email using filters system, but thats not the point. Why generate such an email in the first place? People view buzz messages as somewhat unimportant and lesser in priority and attention-neededness than email. I usually check Buzz only after I have completed checking fully the day’s email. Why generate email from Buzz?
My comment here – Should Buzz be part of Gmail? as follows
“Yes, but Buzz updates should not come into normal Inbox. Buzz is something seen as ‘less important’ than email and which can be checked ‘as time permits’. I mean, if somebody is real serious about communicating with you, they should send you an email, rather than a Buzz.” – Me
Link
How to Flirt in the Real World Using Facebook and Twitter [Bad Valentine] – Link.
I had written in some blog comment somewhere about how Collective Buying or Group Buying is yet to come to America. An interesting tweet from @chrismessina tipped me off about the existence of Groupon. Amazing concept, that has been somewhat late in coming.! But I am sure time spent on it will be worthwhile (for those living in Chicago, and SF only, I think).
Genetic engineering for brains
A few days ago, I mentioned in one of my blog posts about how to treat your brain like a computer – how to Defrag your brain – Lifehacker. Today I was thinking about it further and determined that the first thing we are going to need to treat a brain on the lines of a computer is storage. I was thinking how will you store all those sights, sounds and smells you come across in your storage area or database. You could take pictures and videos and fill up hard disks worth of data, you could use something like Microsoft SenseCam, etc. The one big hitch will be how to store smells and other sensory data (like tastes). I was thinking may be in a few years we may come across genetic engineering for brains where upon few brain cells can be ‘replaced’ with artificial brain cells, synapses, axes, dendrites and neurons. These cells could come pre-filled with information, data and knowledge (DIKW). Then we could depend on our in-built database to remember certain things we are not supposed to forget. The hardest part is how to query this info bank. In standard systems theory, you would use a commonly understood language like SQL for this, using SELECT statements. But our brain doesnt work that way for querying and recalling. We need more research into how our brains query previous and existing memory data. We need to arrive at a ‘concept search’ protocol that is not exactly search by word, or semantic-based, but search by meaning. Current search implementations are all based on word matches. For example, I just came across a page that I bookmarked. I ‘forgot’ what the url was like, as I dont need to remember it, the system does it for me. I only need to be able to give it proper query words which I am likely to remember, recall and refer to later. Sometimes these words are not found in the title of the page (which is often how the pages are made query-able by bookmarking systems). So came the concept of tagging with keywords. So you could tag a page with keywords that you are likely to remember. But even there, it is not ‘concept search’. It is still ‘word match’ search. For example, you and me know ‘biz’ means ‘business’ but a word match search engine will not know this. So if you query something based on what you recall about the page, it is difficult for existing search engines and mechanisms to bring up the results. Our brain works in a different way.
Update: After I posted this, I came across this page : Helping Computers understand language which talks in more detail about this ‘conceptual search’. And I wasnt even searching for it! Just came across this casually link-to-link. Sometimes I think the internet has some super-human intelligence that it is somehow able to sense what you are up to, and on its own, produces results that are most relevant to you as at this point in time. This is not my first time I have come across such a phenomenon like this. This leads me to think may be electrons and electricity and bits and bytes have a mind of their own that taps into our own consciousness levels.
For example, what I remember about the page that I just bookmarked is that
It had a Twitter song/lyric in it that was about 15 lines long.
It was written by someone in Bend, Oregon.
It had a music video in it.
Now with only these as the queryable parameters, my Firefox bookmark is unable to bring the same page up easily. (Unless I save each and every bookmark page with a “Save as…” snapshot so I could go through recent snapshotted pages to retrieve the page in question).
If you are interested this is the page – Twitter Love.
* * * * *
If you have been into computers for some time, you would have no doubt come across the term ‘index’ used in connection with databases. The term ‘index’ has now obtained a revision in meaning from what you originally learnt it stands for, into something computer database oriented, for me at least. For example, on seeing the proverb ‘Face is the index of the mind’ if your brain draws a parallel, so understanding that mind is a database and face is the index, then welcome to database geekery. You have been working with databases for so long. There must be a word in English to denote this ‘re-definition’ in perception. But I am currently unable to recall any such word from my vocabulary as to what word could denote this phenomenon of ‘redefined perception in meanings’.
* * * * *
Answered the question “why can’t we label food as red (mostly bad), amber (ok), green (mostly good) andf simplify it all ?” as follows.
This is because people’s judgements regarding what’s bad and what’s good are different from person to person. What one considers ‘good’ may be ‘bad’ for another. For example, how would you ‘classify’ chocolate, sugar and coffee? They could be labeled ‘good’ because they are mood enhancers but they could be ‘bad’ for people striving for a healthy diet. Thats why there are objective measurements like Calories, Carbohydrates, Ingredients, etc. so we could make an informed decision by ourself on seeing the food packaging label.
But this is a good idea when you extend the concept. What if you could ‘label’ your feedback on food items on supermarket shelves? It will be something like a SideWiki, but this time it will not be on web pages, it will be on actual physical items. Think of an age where you could point your camera at a piece of produce or shoppable item and see public comments left on it by people. The ‘people’ could be filtered by those whom you choose to follow or trust through some means – by virtue of them being your relatives, friends, contacts, acquantainces etc. What kind of technology will this need? First, the camera built in the phone should be able to recognize the object by vision and retrieve comments from a public database. It will need image recognition, location recognition (GPS) and the ability to connect to a public comments ecosystem (like a website on the Internet perhaps). Then you could leave ‘group buying’ tags on some items you see on shelves in supermarkets (or in window shopping). For example, you could leave a public comment on an item like ‘let me know when this item is on sale’ and hope some kind soul would take the trouble of informing you when the item actually goes on sale. (May be the shopkeeper himself). You could leave comments like ‘I am interested in purchasing this dishwasher, but the price is a bit high. If you are interested also, please contact so we could form a group, and if we buy in a group of three, the price is likely to come down.’. Interesting concept, leading to interesting ideas.
* * * * *
Neuromarketing
I came across this term for the first time last week. From my preliminary, hurried understanding, it has something to do with aggressive, targeted advertising that understands and responds to human ‘reptilian brain’. I even see vehement opposition to it. What I dont understand is why all the opposition to this concept. I consider myself well evolved, I dont buy something just on impulse factor, but only after thorough research and whether I really need it or not. I dont buy something just because the sales letter copywriter has been fantastic – what I see is the intrinsic worth or value of the product, what it means to me and how much it would set me back cost-wise. I could be wrong, but I would like to see neuromarketed ads targeted at me, behavioral advertising, context-oriented, personalized, viral advertising, and what not, it is all knowledge gained for beefing up marketing textbooks. But when it comes to reality, at the end of the day, I dont know about how other people buy, but for me, I buy something only if I can afford it and whether it makes sense for me buying it. I recently bought a music track on Amazon, it was something like $0.99, and I just bought it because the sample music they had was good, and it was not because some sales copy writer wrote a big sales letter extolling the virtues of this particular music track. May be I am wrong. May be Americans buy stuff that doesnt make sense to them and which they cant afford to have. That is probably the reason why there are so many bankruptcies and concepts like credit scores, credit history, etc.
* * * * *
Digital assets
I have came across some file folders named ‘assets’ which contain images, javascripts, PDFs, etc. for including in web pages. Something in me tells me this is not the right term for it. So I thought about it for a while. On the ‘yes they are right to call them as assets’ side, I could think of the points “Assets cost time and money to make, assets can be measured, assets can be audited, assets have monetary value” so these are ‘assets’ as all these points apply to stuff like images of web pages. On the negative side, ‘no, the term ‘assets’ is incorrect’ I couldnt think of anything. But somehow usage of this term ‘assets’ makes me cringe (Update: may be the right word is “flinch” and not “cringe”) and pivot in my chair a micro-little amount.
* * * * *
Social search
After I wrote the blog post a few days ago about Aardvark and how NY Times called them ’social search’ I read the news that Google has now acquired Aardvark. I sometimes think they are playing a corporate game in there, with millions changing hands, and the perpetrators of the transaction taking cuts into their pockets. I dont see how Aardvark fits into Google. Primarily because I dont ascribe to the view that, what Aardvark does is ’social search’. I believe what it does is more aptly described as ’social Q & A’ with some clever routing going on as to who is the most knowledgeable person to answer your query.
My concept of ’social search’ means that, you wouldnt have to ‘frame a question suitable for asking’. You simply would issue a search just like any other regular search. But if the search is ’social’, meaning you checked a box or something like that during the searching process, it should, in real time, notify your friends circle, contacts circle, your followers, etc. The difference between ’social search’ and ’social Q&A’ lies in the fact that you dont have to frame a question, you simply issue a search query which you think is appropriate. The searches you make should also be made available in a public feed that anybody could subscribe to, with only your UserID as identifier (with your optional connivance of course). People could see public search queries, and if they think they are able to help or guide, should be able to ‘guide’ the searcher to the right resource, not exactly with an answer per se, but even with a pointer to another resource. Why would people do this? Because they want followers for their profile. The person receiving the favor may then choose to ‘follow’ the person who guided. Now that could be a powerful motivator to increase the usage factor. Now that is what I would call ’social search;’ it being truly social in every sense of the word. Social means not only connected to your own circle, it should also represent an interface by which you connect with the external world, allowing you to be discovered, and being able to discover others, through a common API (another sign my vocabulary has merged with software and computing vocabulary)
* * * * *
Links
We know the country of Italy is shaped like a boot. What other countries have shapes that are common with other objects? – Link.
How to solve a Rubik’s cube in under a minute – Link.
50+ funny and weird signboard pics – Link.
How people negotiate condom use – Link.
How I got every job I ever wanted – Link.
Is Plain water healthier than sparkling water? – Link.
How to finally overcome shyness – Link.
Random thoughts
The only three three-digit numbers of significance are 555, 666 and 777. 555 is a brand of cigarette, 666 represents Anti-Christ and 777 is a brand of a pickle.
Vocabulary
Just came across this word schadenfreude in one of the comments in the TechCrunch MG Siegler rant about Expedia and had to look it up. It means “Malicious enjoyment derived from observing someone else’s misfortune“. I wonder how is this word different from ’sadism’.
Quality of search Yahoo vs Google
I just used yahoo to search for “Readefine” (sic) to get to the page which formats web pages into easier-to-read on the eyes – newspaper style columns. Yahoo incorrectly tried to tell me that I am looking for “redefine” whereas Google in the first result itself, was able to correctly point to what I wanted – the ‘Readefine’ page which formats web pages into newspaper-style columnar texts. I know Google is constantly working on improving search quality and search experience, so there goes something Yahoo might take a note of. Yahoo is good at things like opening up search APIs’, YUI, YQL, etc. developer stuff but in search, Google is still leading.
