Is Facebook trying too hard?

Gina Trapani - Smarterware

I read a Twitter post by @smarterware quoting Joe Moon’s article on Facebook’s New Timeline Feature (here http://bit.ly/r5Reru) who draws an analogy/parallel between Facebook and the wedding photographer. Both add value to the “events” of our lives however, as Jo points out, there becomes a point where the “event” begins to change and be adjusted by the wedding photographer who is permitter more and more authority to change the wedding. “Stand over here”. “Let’s wait a few minutes until the sun comes out” and so on. All the time the wedding photographer has the brides best interest at heart – we hope – and all the more the wedding photographer is making our important day according to their schedule and their values. Is Facebook doing the same as the wedding photographer? Is Facebook trying too hard?

@JeffJarvis has insight into these kinds of things and has led me to create a theory: that people, groups of people that is, do not inherently want to be organised. They want to self-organise. I believe that Facebook is beginning to do what governments do, and people resist; they organise us. There is a point where Facebook and the wedding planner begin to ruin the wedding. There is a place where governments start to ruin the country they are governing. We only have to look at the economy at the moment to see that.

Jeff often asks the question (such as in his book, “What Would Google Do?”) “What business are you in?” Is Google in the search business or the advertising business. Is Yahoo an Internet company or an Entertainment company. Jeff would say, for example, that the G is in the advertising business. Facebook, according to yours truly, is in the advertising business too, however my observation is that Facebook eloquently organises our social lives for us and for that we give them our eyeballs, our time and our information. Google on the other hand gives eloquence to information predominately, not society. Not yet anyway. Google organises our websites, our emails, our calendar. Facebook organises our friends.

That is why I see Google having a much harder time at launching a social network. They’re DNA is to eloquently organise data and to add value to that data. Facebook eloquently organises our social lives and adds value to that. The wedding planner eloquently organises our memories and adds value to that. Being a search engine Google is not built to create social networks, hence the complete, embarrassing failure of Wave, and Buzz, to name a few.

We – the people – want Facebook to give eloquence to our social lives. To our data – but not to organise us. In the same way that we do not want Google to have too much information – too much power – we don’t want Facebook to have too much power over our social lives. When Facebook starts to divide and create borders around not only our data but our friendships, our groups, they have crossed the line. They are trying too hard. They have become a government.

Now this is not a post about predicting an exodus from Facebook. Far from it. There are too many barriers to exit. (See Porters 5 Forces). This is an observation that the business Facebook is in is organising people. Jeff Jarvis once wrote that Google “eloquently organises information” making it useable and valuable in a way that advertisers are happy to pay for.

As the people of the world give freely and willing information that governments drool over they need to take the warning that we – the people – do not want to be organised.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/04/06/bill-of-rights-in-cyberspace-amended/

Links: www.buzzmachine.com, www.twit.tv, www.thinkupapp.com

Eli Pariser on Facebook Privacy and hiding truth online

Ted.com: “As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there’s a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a “filter bubble” and don’t get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview. Eli Pariser argues powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be bad for us and bad for democracy”

The early days

Red for Relevance

I remember in 1996 when my high school installed the Internet in the library. I sat down so excited and started surfing the web. Other than setting up one of the first 500,000 Hotmail addresses there was little else to do. I didn’t know what websites were there and search was horrible. Google wouldn’t exist for another 4 years!

Google has made sense of the web. In the Information Age whoever eloquently organises information and delivers up relevancy is king. That’s right relevancy is king. However that’s all changing.

Page rank used to indicate relevancy. It doesn’t anymore. Just because your fish shop website ranks 1st doesn’t mean it is necessarily what I am searching for. Google’s algorithm takes in 1000s of signals from links to likes to ranks to content and more to deliver up a relevant search result. However that’s all changing too. Too fast perhaps for Google.

Now with geo-location based search, and social networks influencing search results what is relevant is changing. For example when I am looking for a cafe, do I want:
- The cafe closes to me (geo-location tools on my iPhone/Droid tell Google where I am)
- The cafe I “liked” on Facebook or +1′d on Google
- The cafe my friends on Twitter recommended?
- The cafe with the most hits, ratings and so on…

The current frontier for the web is for someone (Google perhaps) to include social and geo-location based information into their search results. This is a hard battle.

See also The Web of Intent

The web of intent

Everyone is saying that Mobile is the “next big thing” however we all know that already. The power of increased bandwidth, battery life and touch screens will place power and interconnectivity between humans and objects like never before. Near Field Communications (NFC) and RFID are two more things that can change the way we do business. (You will read more about NFC in the coming months).

However this newer term, “The Web of Intent” is very interesting. The web of intent is a series of mechanisms that are being invented right now that are designed to be stronger and more effective filters for the way we pass information. At the moment there is not to much information, there is a problem with the way we filter it. (See my post on someone needing to invent a search that is relevant). These filters may be social or code but they will come.

The quickened pace of content production and distribution have created a stream of information that we have trouble focusing our attention on, much less our intention. Establishing (indeed, re-establishing) a true Web of Intent will require different interaction with the stream, one that insists on active participation and creative work, rather than passive consumption. – Nova Spivack

Interesting reads: http://gigaom.com/2010/09/04/the-web-of-intent-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think/

http://gigaom.com/2010/08/26/trailmeme-and-the-web-of-intent/

Search relevancy

tree of knowledge

Preference based search

I’d really like a preferences based search interface for iPad iPhone and mac. Im finding google is not relevant these days. Today i was looking for a cafe that was open on a Monday. I couldn’t find it. Doing my phd research would have been easier. Googles results for “cafe near me that’s open and serves bonsoy” gave me nothing. Google didn’t know that i wanted a place. It didn’t select “google places” for me nor did it find my location. It didn’t know what types of cafes i liked or places ive been to in the past. I even tried Urbanspoon which gave me nearby cafes but didn’t allow me to search for cafes that are open on Mondays. I had to drive past 2 and see the doors closed. Even though urbansooon has opening hours you had to look in each file and dig for that info. I propose that Rodney (@breakthruonline) makes a preference based search engine that remembers the WAY i like to search. I want to train that search engine to know that when i search for a cafe to always search for ones nearby, that use bonsoy and that are open. I want that search engine to remember that when i am looking for a cafe or restaurant to always select google places and to give the results based on popularity not price. 

Every time i do a search on google or Facebook or urban spoon i have to train the search engine again and again to know what is relevant for me. i want my search engine to remember the WAY i like my results served to me. Is that too much to ask?

All of these asks are simple and easily added to a search engine by selecting “more options” on google or “filter” for urban spoon. These is an opportunity for someone (hint Rodney) to create a user interface based on google that remembers the WAY i want my search results served to me.