Apps
Contact
Seminars
RSS FeedOctober 24th, 2011
Has Google Gone Evil?
One of the premises of Google was “Do No Evil”. Their original claim to fame was the (Larry) PageRank algorithm, and while of course their algorithm has evolved entirely over the last 10+ years and is no longer as simple as the original PageRank, still, their moral standard was that: “No sponsorship can affect the quality of their search results.” In other words, you couldn’t just buy a higher rank in the search listing for a specific keyword. Sure, you can buy an ad spot using the Google AdWords for the keyword (say “insurance”) and if you can afford to pay $54.91 for each click, then sure, by all means, your website can be shown, but it will be shown on the side, and clearly marked with the word ‘Advertisement’.
This is where it gets interesting. What is “clearly marked”? How clear is clear? Is this clear enough for you? Is this clear enough? How about this: clear. This is the aspect in which Google’s moral standard has dropped faster than the housing market of 2008. Consider this snapshot that I took for doing a vanity search on enterprise dashboards.
I can still find out which of the top links are advertisements, I just have to hold my laptop screen at a few different angles. (It works out – just requires a little persistence. A bit of screen moving never killed anyone.)
So, I think all said and done, the links are clearly marked. Just depends on what you call clear. And certainly, Google hasn’t gone evil. Just depends on what you call evil.
October 6th, 2011
Steve Jobs – RIP
“We just wanted to build the best thing we could build.” — Steve Jobs
This is a part of 3 favorite quotes by Steve Jobs. This line is the epitome of all successful product development. Best products are the ones that we create that we wanted to use. Whether it is the user interface, the back end, the wires, what have you – it should really be the best, even if no one will ever see it. This strategy is very different the strategy of General Motors, which tried to save money by building auto parts that were outliving the car itself to lower specifications. Well, their stock results are a bit different too.
RIP Steve.
September 18th, 2011
Leading Financial Institution with Nice GUI and No Transaction Analysis
Here is my full Bank of America screenshot. Let everyone be aware that I use BoA, I am a Novec customer, and how much I spend each month on electricity (although, although, there is a twist to that).
As you can notice, using a spiffy UI, I can easily find transactions using a keyword (Novec). That is cool as ice. I like that. (In Jim Carey voice: I like that a lot.)
However, do notice two payments going out for each bill that I receive. One might think that using some advanced (or rudimentary) transaction analysis, the bank might find that to be rather odd. (Might is the operating word in the previous sentence, used twice for effect.) Data anomaly techniques have been around for a while. Still, this goes on. 
Ok, now back to my tease from the beginning – my electricity spending each month has not been disclosed by these numbers. Why? Well, the way it works is that although the payment is being made twice, the receiver Novec, does credit it correctly, therefore bringing some credit balance forward each month. (If you like a Math problem, you can try to solve for the actual numbers. 
)
Still, the lack of simple transaction analysis by a leading financial institution is rather surprising.
April 14th, 2011
Apparently the “Specialties” aren’t working
And this, from a LinkedIn user’s profile. The company name has been hidden to protect the guilty.
[And btw, the person's first language is English.]