What I like about the new Yahoo! flickr and tumblr

The revived Yahoo! shines with a flickr of light

How one woman helped get that done.

marissa mayer caricatureIf you haven’t noticed, every since ex-Googler Marissa Mayer took up the reins as CEO of Yahoo! … the old purple bastion of human-interevened search in Silicon Valley has lifted itself up out of the grave which it once dug for itself.

In fact, Mayer has done such an outstanding job that she is now boss of the company that just last month, in July, 2013, Yahoo! saw its US search traffic top that of Google, for the first time in … well, since just about the first time that Google took first place.

So what has the new Yahoo! Chief done that has helped turn around the once dying dinosaur?

Well, I’m not going to bore you with all of the rumors and reports of internal changes, or the lavish expenses she afforded herself to build a childcare facility exclusively for her own offspring. Nope. I’m just going to focus on the three biggest changes that have rolled into town, or rather, into Yahoo! in the past year.

1) She bought tumblr. While this may not seem like anything that would help Yahoo! back to the top spot in U.S. web search, the fact is that tumblr is a fast growing service, still used mostly by teens and young adults. They are the prime demographic to target for early adoption and for social marketing. When something spreads on tumblr, it generally spreads elsewhere, too. Yes, it’s a big risk (in terms of capital) but the payoff is tremendous, if it can be actualized. And so far, so good (at least from an outside perspective).

2) She made flickr probably the coolest photo and video (and file) storage facility online. Every single flickr account now has a Terabyte (yes, that’s right, a terabyte) of free space. That’s one thousand Gigabytes. I’m not sure if you’re counting, but the last time I checked, Google accounts were in the 30 GB range, and that’s for old accounts with tons of content on them already. This makes flickr the uniquely positioned player to dominate the space of content farming.

3) She is turning Yahoo! Search into something more algorithmic, and less polluted by human interference. This one’s my favorite. When she was at Google, Ms. Mayer helped brand the extremely computer-based algorithms and SERPs of the GOOG as the most elegant way to give users what they were searching for.

However, if you’ve looked at Google over the last year, you will have noticed that their biases and other silly protocols are interfering more and more in what their search engine results pages display. In other words, Google is becoming less and less computational, and more and more based on the human bias of their editors and executives (nepotism is already in full swing there — just ask Page and Brinn, the two co-founders, who have allowed their friends and family’s websites to shoot straight to the top of their niches, without any apparent reason of actual authoritativeness).

Meanwhile, Yahoo!, which started out as a fully human directory, has started to show that it too can compete in the algorithm game, and the search results are becoming more and more bias-free, and based increasingly on science.

Oh yeah, and without adding it to the list, she upgraded the Yahoo! logo The first one I saw was on August 28. It was a simple Times looking font I saw last week looked almost accidental, only to be replaced with a kind of clean, futuristic runes font. It’s very retro … the one from last week was almost a rip-off of the old Google font. It kind of said “our logo doesn’t matter. You’re here to find what you’re looking for, regardless of the pretty face we put out front.” And now the new one seems to hark to ancient times … long before there was an Internet, or anything digital, for that matter, save for our index fingers. And now they’re rolling out (as a test?) a new logo every day in September. Here’s a sneak preview they posted on YouTube (a Google company):

So three cheers for Mayer, and may we all see a better Yahoo! grow, yay, even as hipsters and mainstream users turn away from the omnipresent and privacy-intruding Google.

A neat tool quietly rolled into Gmail

Google surprise: A neat tool quietly rolled into Gmail

There’s something nifty in a popular Google product, even if you don’t know it’s there.

Gmail attachment checker

Despite my not-always-positive views of the Google, overall I do think they are a remarkable company. One of the great value assets is their ability to create really useful software applications.

Gmail, the popular google version of email on the web, aka: webmail, is one such application. In Gmail, when you write an email, and mention an attachment to your recipient, the webmail application checks the message to see if there is in fact a file attached. That way, you don’t accidentally send without the file you intended to attach.

Here’s an example of what it looks like, from inside a Gmail account:

google gmail file attached checker feature

You’ll see a screen similar to this (minus my in-signature cartoon) when you forget to attach a file in your gmail message.

Try it for yourself. Compose a new mail in your Gmail. Write “attach” or “attachment” or “attached” in an email that you send to any of your contacts (or to yourself if you don’t have anything to send anyone). Don’t attach any file. Hit Send. You’ll see the screen get darker and a window pops up and says:

  • Did you mean to attach files?
  • You wrote “attached file” in your message, but there are no files attached. Send anyway?

And then it offers you to “Cancel” – go back to the message to attach the file you want to include, or “Send Anyway” – without an attachment.

Now, it is a little silly to call the “go back to the message” button “Cancel”. Why not just label the button “Go back to message to add attachment(s)” ? or just “Attach” and make it go straight to the file attachment facility? I don’t know. I guess they have a reason for it, like, the software engineers don’t know how to communicate plain English so fluently now that Marissa Mayer has moved over to Yahoo! All the same, it is a brilliant and handy little feature, ensuring a higher quality experience when sending email from your Gmail account.

So there you have it.  If you already use Gmail, I hope that you enjoy this useful built-in feature.  And I publicly applaud Google for this great tiny evolution of webmail. I hope other email and webmail makers include a similar feature in their own applications, sooner rather than later.

How Spam and Google effectively ruined the internet for millions of publishers and other people

How Spam and Google effectively ruined the internet for millions of publishers and other people

satire editorial cartoon of google copyright school 2011 april 14

black and white editorial comic of the google copyright school by laughzilla for thedailydose on 2011-04-14

The day the indie publisher died, care of Spam and Google

The gold rush of the first Internet wave

Back in the heady days of the 1990s until mid-2000, independent internet publishers were able to easily thrive online, both by email and on the then-nascent world wide web.

Back then, you literally just had to know how to have a web page set up (whether you built it or had a friend do it for you), set up an email list, start publishing to your email list (and sometimes to your web site, too), make sure you were indexed in Yahoo! and AltaVista, and a dozen other engines and directories, and your list would probably start to grow, as long as you delivered a consistent product or service, like a newsletter or research paper or magazine.

Once your traffic was rolling, you could start calling advertisers (by looking them up online or in the yellow pages), and start selling ads for $500 or $2000, minimum, without having to negotiate very much at all. It seemed like a lot of money for independent publishers, and an incredibly cheap deal for advertisers.

Publishers were happy. Advertisers were happy. Everyone seemed happy.

Then something happened, and it wasn’t what you might think.

In October 2000, the tech bubble popped. Billions upon billions of dollars were vaporized, and gone were the masses of well-funded no-value companies, who managed to rake in huge sums of investor funds, without so much as a penny of revenue, let alone profit.

At the same time, independent companies, with real revenue and (cough cough) real profit margins were hit by something much worse: Spam and heavy reliance on vaporware advertisers.

Those advertisers with so much money to spend on low ROI branding, were only too happy to spend a fortune when times were good, money was plentiful, and the living was easy. We were all drunk on the ease of it all. The advertisers did not want or expect results, because they were overloaded with just getting their clients online, anywhere they could be seen.

All of a sudden, they had no more money, because they were too proud of their “burn rate” for far too long. Rather than taking a long, slow approach to building real value with their substantial investments, they spent it all with a splash, and went out with the crash.

Of course, the publisher were not complaining when the dollars were raining down in a torrent. Then again, they were not doing anything to prepare for the likelihood that the party would end, and reality would sink in. The future, for anyone who had a clue, was bleak, difficult, and full of years of survival, let along growing pains.

All of that is just the fault of everyone legitimately involved in the internet publishing industry back in those days. In that sense, we were all to blame.

Even so, that failure to properly manage well-heeled bank accounts to support these fledgling companies, was nothing compared to the illegitimate abuse of internet resources.

The first villain to rear its ugly head in that way, was spam. Unsolicited mail. Junk email. The junk that used to pile up in your inbox, and somehow, despite all the advances in anti-spam filters, still does.

Spam killed email.

Yes, it’s been said before. I just have something particular to say about it.

Spam killed off the publishing of a Pangea-sized ocean of perfectly legitimate, hard-won email lists, built up by wonderful businesses whose primary access to the online world, was their inbox.

Email lists, of all kinds, belonging to all sorts of publishers, from small to large, from independent to large publicly traded corporations, could no longer reach their customers, because spam flooded their inboxes so badly, that people simply switched addresses, or stopped using email as much as possible.

While it may not sound so bad, the net result was that it killed off the creme de la creme of online publishers who had managed to build up real trust with people through their email.

Of course what led to so much spam was also partly to blame on some of the publishers themselves. They had been selling off or renting off lists of their subscribers to the highest bidder, or any buyer who would offer, without knowing anything about those buyers, their interests, their motives, or any of their future use plans. Of course, spammers did not rely solely on buying lists. They used bots. Little software robots that could gather email addresses automatically from emails, web pages, and other places on the internet.

Those little bots not only gathered the lists, they “cleaned” them by merging and purging. They formed them into new lists and automatically started blasting away highly targeted ads for pills, porn, casinos and other delightful adult products and services we all obviously need every single day.

But even that did not finish off the little publisher, or the large publisher who wanted to hang in there and ride out the storm for better days.

Nope. It wasn’t spam. Because after all, smart publishers were able to migrate from one media to the next, and if they were resourceful enough, they could do it without losing too much in the shuffle. They might even find the new media to be more profitable. For a while.

And then Google ate the Internet

It was right around the tech bubble bursting that Google became the rising superstar leading up to the lovable fuzzy cyber monster muppet that it is today.

Google, complete with its whiz-bang algorithms, was the talk of tech. They had secretly formulated the perfect recipe to deliver exactly what you asked for, by searching for things in plain human languages. Or so they said, and most people seemed to believe them.

Google is a brilliant company. Thousands of the best minds, all working together, developing software and applications that mere mortals dare not dream. Google has created many wonderful tools which have vastly improved the usability of the internet, chief among those being their search engine, and their email known as Gmail.

Still, what Google also did, was to use the power of their search engine, to legitimately buy out the online advertising industry, and like a gorilla, crush it.

Anyone could join google’s ad network. Anyone could use google’s search on their site, even customized. Anyone could let google copy their entire website, and forever own the copies they made and store. And anyone could earn a sliver of the amount they could earn with direct advertisers for the same space, before Google decided to stick itself into everyone’s business, and lower the money flow to pennies on the dollar, if that.

So yes, they managed to lower ad rates, and that was good for advertisers. But by doing so, they killed off many good and valuable media by pawning off low value traffic to the same advertisers, and not paying the good media a rate commensurate with their value. Google’s ad network became the largest cesspool of bottom feeders. And that attracted all the web spammers who ruined search, thus decreasing the value of those google ads, even further.

So much for the Google creed, “Don’t be evil.”

Google stole the Internet by asking for it

Permission marketing is a very positive idea in business, developed online by Seth Godin and others of that stream of thought, which says that sales and marketing are like a date: you have to speak to your date before you go together to the dance, or movie, or dinner. You need permission for every step. That sort of behavior builds solid trust. Lacking that behavior shows a lack of trustworthiness.

Google used permission marketing, by offering the greatest app ever (free search) for anyone’s web site, accompanied by the only app that at the time seemed even greater than the greatest app ever. And that application was: Google AdSense.

By opening up the web to millions more websites into the advertising pool, Google managed to lower the bid rate and value of advertising on the web. They effectively killed off the amounts that advertisers were willing to pay for perfectly good media on sites that had actual audiences.

Google, with all its good intentions, may have delivered better search results, but the cost was that it killed off ad revenues by more than 90% for most internet publishers. That, more than Spam, more than the economic disaster that followed the tech bubble, put millions of websites out of business.

The net effect is that now, more than a decade later, we have yet to see a return to any heyday or good times for publishers online. The exception to that are those publishers who have the means to build or buy themselves a significant, targeted distribution network, with a minimum of millions of contacts. For most media companies, even if you were reaching millions of people a day back in 2000, you probably aren’t doing that anymore. And you can thank Google for doing that, by “organizing the world’s information” in the way that they prefer, and destroying its value in the process.

By making everyone believe that they would always find what they wanted on Google, hundreds of millions, if not billions of people are now basically clueless as to other ways of finding information online. Google is not the be all and end all of search engines. Users relying on google innocently caused so much traffic to be lost from sites that had worked to build something of real value, that those sites could no longer support themselves with Google blocking everyone’s way to their sites.

Of course, the GOOG was not the only one to ask for permission to copy and own your content, in exchange for cheap-o advertising and free search tools. But, they were the best, and the fruit they bore was to build the world’s largest internet advertising network, and the most popular search engine, all at the cost of ruining the ad revenue of millions of companies that were around online, long before anyone had heard of Google.

The story doesn’t end in darkness. There is a better future.  A brighter day did arrive. It’s for another post.

Headscarves and the Olympic Games

Headscarves and Olympic sports

headscarves bombed and banned by france by laughzilla for the daily dose april 11 2011Ever wonder ’bout headscarves in athletics?

At the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games, women athletes on various teams, including Saudi Arabia, were required by their country, to wear headscarves specially designed for their sports. The Saudi women’s judoka wore a headscarf. So did Sarah Attar, the Saudi women’s 800 meter track runner.

At the same time, another group of women athletes, the synchronized swimming team from Egypt, swam with a fair amount of skill, in swimsuits that were as revealing as their competition, and no headscarves or swimming caps.

While this may not seem like much of an achievement, consider the context.

Headscarves in the Arab world

Headscarves are not some ubiquitous Muslim tradition dating back to Mohamed. Head scarves have been worn by men women of Jewish, Muslim and other religions, often by people who lived in uncomfortable climates, both in hot environments as well as cold places. Often, because of its impracticality in daily life, the ability to wear one regularly was seen as a sign of wealth. More recently, especially in monotheistic faiths that practice a male dominated pedagogy, it was taught as a mode of modesty. In Islam, the mandatory headscarf has only been a cultural norm in Saudi Arabla for about 100 years.

Even today, only the Saudi kingdom, Iran and parts of Indonesia require women to don a headscarf, hijab, or burqa of one sort or another. Meanwhile it is prevalent a wider number of nations, but again, not required. It is respectfully accepted. That acceptance is a form of liberal tolerance, not commonly found in places where the headscarf is required by law.

Egypt, which is a nascent democracy, is nevertheless a nation of strong cultural adherence, regardless of one’s opinion of that culture. And even though it is still regulated, the headscarf is a common garment seen in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria.

Geopolitical and cultural impact of the headscarf in Egypt

The country, which little over a year ago ousted its longtime secular military dictator, President Hosni Mubarak, in favor of an Islamist politician, may respect the headscarf, but it does not see a need to enforce it in the dress code, even as it remains the cultural epicentre of the modern Islamic world. The Arab Spring or Jasmine Revolution may after all be a stronger reinforcement of a coexisting cultural and political dichotomy than might be perceived at first glance.

The nation on the Nile is also now run by a democratically elected President, Mr. Mohamed Morsy, who was educated in America, and is a longtime friend and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s right, the same Muslim Brotherhood that gave birth to the ideology which inculcated the extremism of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida ilk. It does not take much imagination to understand what his views are on the subject of headscarves. He is all for them. Even so, he has not even tried (not yet anyway) to make the headscarf mandatory for Egyptian women, because he knows the people of Egypt would not willingly comply with such an order. Egypt, it seems, may be quite capable of running a government elected by the people, even if those people chose a Muslim fundamentalist as their leader.

Of course, that same Egypt is still really headed by the military, which shortly before the elections of 2012, secured its continuing authority through its own dictates. The Egyptian military has assured itself that limiting the executive powers of its newly elected President is the best path towards a better future.

The Egyptian President, meanwhile, as if to prove his moderate values, has already launched military attacks against terrorists in the Sinai peninsula, where recent attacks by militant Muslim gunmen left 17 Egyptian soldiers dead, in addition to destroyed property, military wreckage, and the aftermath of a lethal battle with Israeli forces, who killed the terrorists at the border.

Headscarves, Niqabs and other veils in Saudi Arabia

Now contrast the image of this seemingly divided nation against that of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is run by the Wahabite tribe of Sunni Muslims, who control Mecca, and thus, influence the ideological world of Sunni Islam around the world. Saudi Arabia still has slave markets, and public beheadings by the sword. And yet, people around the world are more concerned about their women having to wear a headscarf. It’s impressive what good PR all that oil money can buy.

While focusing attention on a cultural wardrobe requirement for the fairer sex, Saudi Arabia and other conservative Muslim regimes have distracted enough minds from the real atrocities in their countries, to make observers of the world’s popular quadrennial sports extravaganza give more attention to a piece of fabric, than to the human rights those nations abuse, day in and day out, year after year, without an end in sight.

What mandatory headscarves for its female athletes say about a nation

The contrast of Saudi women having to wear head scarves when competing at the Olympic Games, versus the more liberated women of the Egyptian synchronized swimming team who do not have to wear such fashion accessories, says a lot about the nations from whence they hail.

For one thing, it says that Saudi Arabia is still living in the Dark Ages, when superstition and tradition are more important than science, learning, educated advancement and having an open mind. It says that Saudi Arabia prefers to adhere to the Olden Times and the ways of their ancestors, than to seek a better future for all of its citizens, no matter what their gender, race, creed or sexual preference.

By contrast, the lack of headscarves on the Egyptian women’s athletics teams, says that despite upholding folkloric, cultural religious tradition, they are also determined to actualize a better future; one which is just and allows for the pursuit of happiness. And even though they may seem to be taking a step back by picking a pro-headscarf man as its political head, the evidence to date suggests that the political establishment in the world’s most populous Arab country will not seek to cause deeper social divides by requiring women to wear scarves upon their heads. It seems Mr. Morsi has decided that it is better to maintain a balance between conservatism and liberalism, and that means the old and the new are constantly shifting the weight of popular support back and forth, much like the desert sands around old Pharaoh’s lands.

What it boils down to, is that Egypt has decided to maintain its support of liberal social norms, demonstrated by its ongoing funding of largely exposed female athletes, even as they are governed by a religiously traditional administration, and Saudi Arabia has decided to remain behind the times, as it does by continuing to enforce inhuman laws and punishments against its weakest populations.

As for me, I look forward to the day that no one, no man, woman or child is required to wear any particular piece of clothing, whether in athletic competitions or in day-to-day life, almost as much as I look forward to the end of slavery and human rights abuses around the world.

OOOOOh look … The IOC is all about the money

The IOC protects its IP rabidly.

It’s not as if you didn’t know, right?

Olympic Flag (R) TM Satire

Would it be as funny if it were not so true?

The IOC wants you to show them the money, baby

The Olympic Games are owned and operated by the International Olympic Committees, aka: The IOC, which is a for-profit corporation. They’re in it for the money.

You can’t exactly blame them. The Olympic logo is world-famous, and they have every right and ability to exploit its value for all its worth, even if it means suing small mom and pop shops and businesses that use the word “Olympic” or use any visual that even approximates the famous amateur sports logo.

While it may not be the realization of the dream of Mr. Pierre de Coubertin, who resurrected the ancient Greek tradition of the ultimate pagan celebration of sports in the form of the modern Olympic Games, it is not surprising that the games are in their current state. The Olympics today are riddled with corruption, devoid of their values, and heading as fast as possible down the same track it is currently on.

To know that the IOC is only getting worse in its plans and actions, is more than a little disheartening to the average sports fan. To the person who barely cares about sports at all, it basically is a death knell into the once most highly prized sporting event in the world.