Archive for ‘Tech’

June 28, 2009

The secret to technological success: Embracing the porn industry

I was having a conversation today with Mal and we were discussing the massive role pornography has played in shaping the acceptance of technology.

This is by no means a new finding people have commented for years on the continuing influence porn has had on mainstream acceptance of technologies, from the VHS vs Beta battle of the 1970′s to the emergence of DVD and the uptake of use of the internet, once confined to governments and university geeks. Would these technologies still have achieved their massive level of uptake had the adult-film industry not embraced them? The odds are that DVD and the internet would still have emerged, however it certainly would have taken a lot longer (which means the human race owes the adult-film industry a great debt for assisting our technological development).

The learning we can take from this is that if you are a technology platform and you want to increase your chance of success aim to please the adult-film industry and aid mainstream society in their ability to access and interact with the adult material they produce. I would wager that if a mainstream search engine returned fairly average results for normal search activity but delivered stellar results for “free porn” style search then they would have a great uplift in their non-adult search activity as a direct correlation.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that society at large pretends to be sickened and disgusted by pornography, they try to block and ban it. Yet we know that, even now, the large majority of search activity is adult based searches.

What are your thoughts? If you a technology developer, have you considered directly contacting someone in the adult-film industry and seeing how you can help them address some of their needs?

June 27, 2009

This site does not comply with our Global IT Security Policy. If you have a valid business reason for requiring access to this site please contact your IT department.

Every time I see the above message one thought springs to mind, “Why?”

If I were trying to access some type of beast on girl pornography or a site where they pay homeless people in meth to fight each other with rusty blades then I could understand, but I’m not. I’m trying to access normal everyday sites (such as blogs, entertainment sites and media agencies sites) that for some reason don’t meet the requirements of an internet policy. I have experienced this across a variety of workplaces and it always baffles.

Now, harking back to the interwebs of the 1990′s and indeed the early 2000′s I can understand this, the webs was a scary place to go surfing there were many sharks in them there seas and we all had to be scared all the time. Plus there was the matter of speed, connections were slower and a few websites using only a few MB’s was a significant drain.

And you know what, if you work for a day care centre or a government department I can still understand this added degree of paranoia, after all better safe than sorry, but when you’re in an adult workplace where access to the internet is an integral part of your job one would think we should have moved past this.

The primary reason I don’t think global policies make sense is that they do not account for cultural differences and as such may misinterpret portions of sites in other countries. It would make much more sense to write policies country by country based around the needs of the business is that country.

What are your thoughts on these global policies? Have you found them a hindrance when researching or doing work?

June 15, 2009

Pet Peeve: Ow.ly links

I personally dislike ow.ly links immensely. I find frames invasive, slow and aesthetically displeasing. I know there are a few out there who agree with me, and I know there are a lot of people who use them religiously for all their URL shortening needs.

So, how do you feel about the service?

Tags: , ,
June 2, 2009

Bing – First thoughts

Now that Bing has mysteriously gone live (the live date was listed as Wednesday here in Aus?) I thought I would post up some initial thoughts, so I had a bit of a play around with it doing some searches for terms I had recently searched in Google.

Fight Club and David Fincher were my first two little tests. These are obviously fairly broad, non specific searches and both Bing and Google delivered near identical results, the only difference being that Bing positions its related searches towards the top left of the page, which some users may find helpful in narrowing down their search results (note that google have related searches they’re just positioned at the bottom of the results page).

Okay, so in general information seeking “pub quiz” style terms its a moot point… lets try some ‘decision’ searches, these are after all what Bing is marketing itself as being the answer too.

Best restaurants in Glebe Here we go, some different results, new kid up first,

Bing: I get 3 paid ads as the first 3 results, followed by broader ratings and review sites such as www.bestrestaurants.com.au, www.bestvenues.com.au and www.menulog.com.au/glebe. To be honest I was expecting more, from the look of the video for Bing I was hoping for the engine to draw some information and aggregate it for me to browse without clicking off the SERP.

Google: Google has no paid ads above results, only to the right. I am presented with a map of Glebe, featuring markers of the restaurants in the area as well as a list of locally listed restaurants. This is followed by two results for www.bestrestaurants.com.au and then a slew of other sites similar to the results from Bing.

Now what I have done is far from a detailed testing session, I haven’t the time for that now (perhaps over the weekend), but what I have gained from this little testing session is that although Bing is a dramatic improvement on what live search was, certainly FAR less ugly, it is still a few steps behind Google. Not only does it fail to deliver on its promise as a “decision engine” (which of course is how we fall out of love with brands) it fails to do what MSN need it to do, offer enough value to users to break the Google habit Australia possesses. Lets face it, we no longer search for information, we Google it.

And from the looks of things we’ll never “Bing” them…

May 30, 2009

Google Wave: First Thoughts

As I sit here, scotch in hand on my #emonightin, I am still reveling from my first look at Google Wave (video featured below)

My very first thought is a plain and simple “WOW”. This tool will most certainly revolutionize the way we think about peer to peer communication on the web. It is the next logical step in social media evolution.

My next thoughts are not quite as optimistic, but still positive. Firstly; this tool appears to have amazing capabilities within its HTML interface, however I have fears that it will not run nearly as smoothly with a user base tens of (if not hundreds of) times larger than its current developer base. Secondly; the success of this system will depend entirely on developers willingness to build smooth integration methods for all available services. Google were incredibly wise to adopt an open source tactic with this project as integration is essential to making this tool truly useful.

The next thought is a pondering on the monetisation of a product such as this, I would assume they will stick with their current Adwords based keyword targeting. Interested to see what other targeting possibilities can be offered due to the increased amount of conversational data available to Google (in addition to the extra data gained from integrated API feeds such as Twitter etc..

Come launch, I hope they will have developed a fully functional WordPress integration which will allow me to link Wave, WordPress and Twitter to collaborate collectively on threads/posts, among other things…

To conclude, I hope that this will have a successful launch. It shows more potential to revolutionize the way online communication occurs than anything since the development of email or IM.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.