Google is striving hard to promote Google Plus, and that’s not bad. But the way it does it, altering the search results – that’s bad.
Facebook shows you what your friends are doing, reading or watching; that’s not bad either. But the way it does that, by capturing you in your own “relevant circle”, all over the web – that’s bad.
Being evil is not a full time job, but mainly a constant (wrong) way of doing things. Being stupid – likewise.
The secret solution for getting out of this vicious circle, where the user is captive in his own circle of relevant content (be it relevant for the user or just important for the ones keeping him locked in) is simply to let the user out.
A single query can be run in two instances, on two tables: one table can contain the data relevant to that person, the other one – the data relevant to humankind (or whatever you’d like to call a generic interest, like war news, politics, culture). Therefore, by simply splitting the screen, the user should be able to see both the search results that are relevant for himself and the results that are relevant “per se“. Somewhere between personal relevant results, relevant ads could be integrated as well and I’m guessing that would make them even more visible.
Imagine the left side of the screen page showing what your friends are saying about the subject you’re searching for, while the right side of the page / screen – what Times or “Some Important Opinion Maker” are saying about the same subject. (The two buttons that Google is showing in the upper right corner are not exactly it: you should not have to switch between personal and non-personal results, but to be able to see them both, distinctly, in the same time).
I believe people are able to follow two streams, although most marketing researches may show the opposite. We do not process the two data streams in parallel, that’s true, but we are doing serial processing so fast that it becomes more convenient to say that we can do parallel processing in short bursts.
On the other hand, splitting the results may just save the newspapers, that are right now unfairly fighting against your friends, for your attention; it just shouldn’t be the case for a search engine to ponder wether you should first read what the president is announcing or look at your friends’ new pictures. These two types of content belong to separate categories that are mixed together only by accident.
There should be no way mixing the results so badly that no one could tell what’s being pulled and what’s pushed; the two columns of your search page should be called “only for you” and “for everybody, including you“.
I see no strong argument against this split (besides some technical elbow grease), given the condition that no player wants the information to be truncated or misinterpreted.
Simplicity and elegance are said to be the optimal minimum, but not less than that. If showing only one feed that is the main stream of revenue and customers for so many people, generates so much discontent and disorientation, then it’s time for two feeds of results.
Kindle bookmark:
iBooks bookmark:
Ever heard of “don’t bend the pages, use a bookmark!” in your childhood?
There were at least 3 “anonymous sources” unveiling the exact core concepts of Apple’s educational project, long before its date.
This worries me a lot, much more than all Apple’s-textbooks-are-walled-gardened mumbo-jumbo.
“If there’s one major downside to the iTunes U app, it’s that it’s most definitely exclusionary; students need an iPad, iPod touch or iPhone to take full advantage.” says Darrell Etherington at GigaOM.
Ways to feel bitter about Apple…
That’s a detail. It takes one third of a second for a full opened folder to close, in iOS, yet these effects are there.
You never actually see what’s going on, you can only “feel” the smoothness of the transition. One of the causes of this smoothness is this:
I guess Apple did it for money.
In China. Big time! 
Not all mismanaged companies are dying, as not all well managed companies are surviving.
What’s dying for sure, though, is a company that no longer sees anybody caring for it, be it employees, managers, stock owners or founders. For short, if there no longer are any more persons that really care for that company, as a whole (as in “feeling it”, or “loving it”) and to be able to act accordingly – then that company is dead.
That doomed company is kept in coma by its high-rank tenants who strive to milk its last drop; the comatose state, on the other hand, is technically dependent on several key people, which, usually, are not aware of their crucial importance. The tenants are not aware either of the importance of these people that are playing the roles of “artificial lungs” and “artificial hearts”.
The show is over when one of these “artificial organs” is arbitrarily unplugged.
If you believe “care” is too vague, then you never had a company of your own or never had the chance to work for a living one.
Warren Ellis (via Daring Fireball) on Amazon customer support:
“Isn’t it strange, to be so shocked by actual efficient, friendly and delightful customer service? To have a global electronics company say, “well, hell, we’re sorry about this, how about we sort this out quickly and cheaply for you instead of humping you right in the eyesockets and stealing your wallet?” “
Copying good strategies and tactics is the next best thing that can happen in a market (second to inventing them); mimicking products and features, as Samsung and Google do – is subhuman. Don’t give me the “this is business” crap; a circus chimp is also making money by mimicking people, that doesn’t turn it into a human.
