SocialStartups.com

Josh Porter wrote an article about the co-evolution of humans and technology, which I think should be expanded further. To start, a little background from the one semester class I took with Hod Lipson when I was in school (see his TED talk for self-evolving robots). Co-evolution is a feedback loop where the fitness function of one actor is defined by the fitness function of the other. You can think of it as symbiotic or parasitic. A symbiotic example would be the bacteria in your digestive tract evolving to help you digest while your body evolves to require their presence for healthy digestion. A parasitic example would be the arms race between antibodies and antigens - each continues to evolve to outpace the other. (There is an interesting discussion about the influence of evolving man-made pharmaceuticals and other biotechnologies on the natual co-evolution of antibodies and antigens, but I’ll leave that aside.)

To get back to Josh’s article, I think he didn’t go far enough. Yes, individual’s behavior does change in response to technology, but what if we think about it generationally. Compare children today vs. people born in the 1950s or 1930s. They have a technological intuition that is astounding compared to their parents or grandparents. How is that happening? Now, I’m not arguing that there is some genetically detectable evolution going on with regards to the cognition of technology. I do think there is a behavioral co-evolution (in the same sense that Josh intends) where technology creates a generation of children who intuitively grasp that technology, and as that generation ages will produce even more advanced technology (leading to yet another generation of children more intuitive than the previous).

Where does that leave us? I’m not sure, but I do look forward to an ever-increasing rate of radical innovation in technology.

Tags: co-evolution, science, technology

Thanks to a Facebook Application called Friend Wheel, I can generate the visualization pictured above of my 549 Facebook friends (and still growing). It’s kinda fun to look at; my friends are listing around the edges of the circle, and a line connects to people who are also friends of each other on facebook.  The reds, oranges, and yellows are high school friends. The deep blues are Amazon.com friends. The greens and aquas and most of the rest are college friends.

I had dinner with my friend Steve McNally last night, who is roommates with my other friend Jake Tuck. Lisa asked me which one was I closer to. My response was that I had more history with Jake (we were housemates all through college, whereas Steve only lived in my house for half of college) but was probably closer to Steve since we shared a passion for baseball. Tough call, since Jake is a musician (as I am). Then Lisa asked me if they were friends with Will Paul. I said no, because Will is a hometown friend while Jake and Steve were college friends. So that got me into thinking about how to visual social networks and how inadequate two dimensions is.

Let’s try three dimensions. For the x- and y-axis, imagine an ideaspace - this is a plane that maps out the various interests people have, the hobbies they participate in, the fields they work in. So you have one circle for the friends you go to jazz concerts with, one circle for your photowalking friends, one for your baseball friends. The size of the circle is the number of mutual friends you have who share that interest. At the center, (0,0), is you. The circles in the plane are arranged such that the interests that are most passionate to you are closest to the center. Does this make sense? Two dimensional graph containing overlapping circles of various sizes, with the ones closest to center being of the most interest to you. Got it? Good.

Now for the third dimension, which is time. Over time, you will naturally transition environments. High school, college, work, living abroad, joining the local book club, marrying your spouse and meeting her friends and family, moving to the suburbs to raise a family, etc. Each of these events expands your social network and can form dense clumps. The third dimension in our visualization allows for the stacking of these clumps. It is more uncommon for connections to span the clumps, but it can happen and can be enlightening. I think seeing such a visualization would tell a lot about a person - what their interests are, who their friends are, and how have they changed over time. What’s your social network look like in three dimensions?

I haven’t blogged since the day Lisa came home from Italy. I think it’s because I’ve structured my life to be dichotomous - there are work hours (9 - 7), and then there are non-work hours. So when Lisa was in Italy, I was spending my non-work hours living my “online life” - blogging, reading blogs, sharing posts, keeping up on twitter, reading about friends via Facebook, tracking Etsy using Summize. Now that Lisa is back, I have almost completely replaced those activities with spending time with Lisa, which has been wonderful. I get home from work and dive right into the life we have together.

But it got me thinking - shouldn’t I be able to balance work, life, and online life? How can I fit in my online life without feeling like I’m ignoring the person in my home in favor of a virtual internet community? Just to be upfront, Lisa has been encouraging me to take time and blog and read and do all the other things she knows I like to do. I guess I just have my priorities straight - I like her better than the internet.

So I’m making an effort to come back to my online life, which should make Mark Blumberg happy (a friend of mine from high school who encourages me to blog, not this guy). I’ll fit it in before work or before bed, and we’ll see how it goes. I should probably declare bankruptcy on my Google Reader - it’s been a month since I’ve done more than skim headlines.

OK, time for a real post.

Customer forums are always interesting, particularly for e-commerce sites. There is something about staying at home and being bored that ultimately leads people to “window shop” online, which leads them to socializing with other people who are doing the exact same thing. The range of personalities is wild and wildly interesting.

Four hundred and twenty eight posts ago, I started a thread on the Etsy forums. The thread was intended to have two purposes. One was to simply get a sense of the community and introduce myself to them. Second, I wanted to get some better intuition as to how sophisticated Etsy sellers (the majority of forum posters) are about running their business and the e-commerce business generally. So I asked a basic prioritization question - would you rather us make search better or fix a bug that would occasionally reset the page views counter on your item listing pages? (For those curious, the views system is stored entirely in a cache, and when the cache gets full and a record gets evicted, the page view number resets to 0. Clearly, the system was not engineered to be used in this manner.) My follow up was, if fixing the view system is not a priority, would you rather we get rid of it entirely or keep it broken.

The danger is to get lulled into an urgency to please. When hundreds of users are demanding a feature, you may feel compelled to acquiesce and build the requested feature. Before you do that, stop and consider Henry Ford: “If I did what people said they wanted, I would have built a faster horse.” (or something like that.) Customers are excellent gauges as when something is wrong, but can be extremely misleading about both what exactly is wrong and how it should be fixed. Furthermore, customers do not (or should not) have better visibility than you do into strategic goals, key business metrics, engineering resources, etc. They don’t have your long-term vision nor your understanding of complex dependencies. So don’t jump the gun. Listen, follow the comments to the source, and solve the root of the problem.

While on the subway heading back to Brooklyn - I had gone to see Iron Man at Union Square, it was great - I was thinking about Microsoft. I was trying to imagine what exactly Microsoft could do that 1) doesn’t have an entrenched player, and 2) they might be able to be successful at. Search the Google way, in my opinion, does not satisfy either requirement, even if they bought Yahoo. So what else?

I considered Tim O’Reilly’s suggestion of investing in pieces of an “Internet Operating System”, which could be the answer although they’d have to fight Amazon, Google, Cisco and others for the bragging rights. Requirement (1) no, (2) yes.

I considered gaming, hardware, healthcare, social networking, and others…. but Microsoft is always involved there with mixed success. Is there anything left?

I’ve got a crazy suggestion. And yes, your own personal blog is the perfect place for crazy suggestions. So here it is - Microsoft should work to be the #1 destination site for vertical searching of the “organic web” (I just made that phrase up). The organic web would be defined as information that is continually changing. One example is airline ticket prices. Another is real estate, and another is classifieds. Microsoft should go out and develop / acquire any company who currently has the following properties: (1) The relevant data changes continuously, (2) The site is a leading player in their vertical, and (3) search is the main user activity on the site. Examples I can think of are Farecast (they bought this one), Craigslist (good luck there), and Redfin. With insider access to the data, Microsoft could provide superior search experiences to Google. Microsoft could then create a search portal that would be the first place everyone would go to search for data in these areas. Google’s crawlers can only go so fast - if Microsoft could provide a “real-time” search engine customized to a particular vertical, they could differentiate themselves in a very powerful way.

That’s it, keeping it short tonight since I’ve got a meeting in 10 hours with the CEO, COO, a few others.

Om Malik wrote an interesting post about twitter pricing yesterday, but I think he’s a little off. I don’t blame him, considering his background is not computer science. And besides, it started a really interesting conversation. Before we start talking about Twitter pricing plans, we need to come to an agreement about what technically is hurting Twitter. Ideally, scaling issues should be orthogonal to your business plan; if you are successful, lots of people use your product, and that’s a good problem to have. Generally, you don’t want to tax your best users.

So on to the technology. Here’s the clue that we’ll start with:

Twitter is, fundamentally, a messaging system. Twitter was not architected as a messaging system, however. For expediency’s sake, Twitter was built with technologies and practices that are more appropriate to a content management system.

From Twitter’s post on architecture and the problems they are facing 

When I read “content management system”, I’m thinking “blogging platform”. My guess is that Twitter is built to be a massively multi-user blogging and blog reading system - every user gets a blog to publish posts with and a blog reader to aggregate the posts of their friends. Considering Evan Williams was the founder of Blogger, I think it’s pretty reasonable.

So if you think of it that way, then the obvious way to architect the system is publishing via RSS and aggregating via RSS. When you write a new tweet, your message gets stored in the database. (Yes, shoving all of that data into a database is a really difficult engineering problem in itself. Assuredly they will partition across multiple databases if they don’t already.) The massive pain comes in when pulling in what your friends’ tweets are. Let’s talk through how it works. Your twitter homepage is acting like an RSS reader, so first it will lookup all of the feeds it needs to check - all of the people you follow. Then, for every person you follow, an RSS feed will be read or generated. The resulting set of RSS feeds will be merged back together and sorted chronologically. The result is your Twitter homepage.

Notice here that this is what is called a “pull” or “poll” model - you are checking for new posts whether there are new posts or not. This can generate a ton of unnecessary load on servers and databases, not to mention network traffic costs. With the advent of Twitter applications, these applications are constantly polling Twitter to see if there is anything new to publish. Ping, ping, ping. All to see if there is something new afoot.

Which brings us around to pricing. It is not, as Om suggested, Scoble’s fault for having 25,000 people following him. The cost is not sending one of his messages 25,000 times. No, actually it’s Scoble’s fault for following 21,000 people and constantly checking for new tweets from those people. It’s also the fault of power users like him using applications that aggressively use the Twitter API to check for new tweets - most likely the same people who use those applications are following large numbers of people.

As with all scaling problems, the first idea is “cache more!”. And sure, you can cache the heavy Twitter producers. But Scoble isn’t following just the big twitter users - he’s following everyone he can, because that’s how he believes he can get an edge on news and trends. Can the long tail be cached? Doubtful - there are too many users who fall into that category. Can you charge those who follow more than, say, 1000 people? Maybe $10 a month for every thousand people you follow, with the first 1,000 free? That could work, but it’s risky. Would Scoble, in the face of paying $210 a month, permanently switch to Pownce? Or Friendfeed if they built a twitter clone? How many would follow?

The solution, of course, is to do exactly what Twitter says they are doing - switch to a different model and scale horizontally (”throw more machines at it”). I’m interested to see how it turns out for them.

How Thinking Costs You - washingtonpost.com

Found this via Paul Kedrosky’s Weekend Reading post.

Really interesting stuff - given that people are really bad at making correct stock market predictions, the more information they know, the worse they perform.

Behavioral economics studies these phenomena, and firms are counting on it.

I wonder if this is true in other areas as well, like deciding on how to price items for sale on Etsy.

Tags: behavioraleconomics, pricing

I think the best innovation from twitter was messaging with @username. If I remember right, Twitter didn’t support that at first - it was a grassroots invention by Twitter users that was picked up and officially supported. Facebook did something similar even before Twitter: when you wrote a post on your Facebook blog (haven’t seen much uptake there), you can choose from your friends list which friends are mentioned in the post. Kinda kludgy solution though, since you have to scroll through hundreds of people and click a bunch of checkboxes.

It’s obvious from the evolution of @replies on Twitter that this is something very organic and natural to humans. The internet is not a solitary vacuum; all software is social.

So here’s a thought: let’s bring @replies to the rest of the web. Whether I’m writing a post on my blog or commenting on a Flickr photo or sharing an item on Google Reader, I should be able to use @username. This serves two purposes.

1. Who is being referred to?

One is to give everyone reading your comment to understand who you are talking to. This is a basic tenet of face-to-face group communication - you turn to a specific person in the group, address them by name, and speak. Sometimes, like at a big dinner party, you might not know all the guests, leaving you guessing as to who is whom and what their background is. On the internet, we can do better. By linking to some kind of profile, the comment reader can read up on who is being pulled into the conversation and better understand context.

2. Who is referring to you?

Here’s something the internet can do that can’t happen in real life - being able to read the record of all conversations that made reference to you. Twitter does this with their “Replies” page. Why not off Twitter as well?

How #1 could be implemented

This is a really difficult engineering problem, and I won’t pretend like I’ve got all the answers. So I’ll do my best. There are a number of existing web sites that vend OpenID accounts, including Yahoo, Blogger, and LiveJournal. Here’s the list. All of these services support some kind of “Profile” page, where the user can publish information about themselves. So we have a decentralized way of naming people (OpenID) and we have a way to lookup information about that person (hosted profile). So what’s missing is browser support for interpreting the @reply markup.

What’s that you say? No one is going to use awkward OpenID URLs to name people? You’re right. So, browsers will also need hooks into your Address Book, so that they know which “John” you are referring to. This could have the same auto-complete UI that email clients already support - as soon as you start typing @John, a small drop down appears next to your cursor showing the various people you know who match “John”. You pick the right one, and the markup is entered for you, linking to John’s profile.

How #2 could be implemented

The last bit of this is discovering all the places people are referring to you. This is tricky, and the two ideas I have have weaknesses. One idea uses another open technology called XMPP, the Jabber protocol. Here’s how it could work. When your browser publishes “@John”, it will use XMPP to send a message to John’s OpenID server notifying John of the reference to his name. When John logs into his OpenID-supporting service of choice, he can be shown all of the messages that have been pushed to him.

The other idea is for the OpenID server to support an HTTP POST whose payload would be the URL where the reference was made. The OpenID server would log all traffic to that special URL and pass it on to John once he logs in.

Thoughts?

Anyone have thoughts on this? Obviously to big (some might call it “unlikely”) changes need to happen. First, browsers need to add support for OpenID based @name markup. Second, browsers need to know how to send XMPP messages (or, invoke a hidden URL hosted by the OpenID server, which might be easier.) Lastly, OpenID servers need to process these incoming messages and present them to the user in some helpful way.

Naturally, I imagine there are a host of security concerns to work through, especially with browsers pushing URLs around. Still, I think this would create a very interesting social ecosystem. What do you think?

As part of my new job at Etsy, I’ve been amassing a gigantic list of every idea anyone (customers included) has had on a way to improve Etsy. The point is not to cull from the list a handful of good ideas. Instead, we’re going to look at everything and try and tease out what’s causing people to react the way they are. Many times people will ask for a feature that solves an immediate problem, but they’re taking aspirin, not making a lifestyle change. You can get yourself into trouble doing this if you’re not careful - “quick, let’s redesign EVERYTHING” - but it can be very instructive.

I think Data Portability is a symptom of a bigger problem, which is that people expect to be able to project their world view onto their Internet experience. I can interact with my social network in real life without restriction, so why not on the internet? There are so many other examples beyond Social Network data. To be fair, I think Data Portability is great. I was a supporter of it at Amazon, and I really appreciate the work Chris Saad and folks are doing. I even lurk in the Data Portability google group and read the threads. So this is not a shot at them.

Umair Haque writes the Bubblegen blog which is inspiring once you decipher what he’s saying. At first glance, he can occasionally sound like a raving genius, creating large gaps in his logic where it clearly makes sense to him but no one’s following. But his core message has been the same for years, way before anyone else understood - help your users create value for themselves and the network effects will reward you. Think on that. This is not about sucking every last penny out of them via precise ad targeting. This is about good beating evil. His writing had a big influence on me and my decision to join Etsy.

So this is how I see Data Portability fitting in. Ignore, for the moment, the libertarian Silicon Valley echo chamber where everyone is demanding their data. The average person doesn’t care which company stores their data. The thought never crosses their mind. Instead, it’s all about what I can do today and what do I want to do tomorrow. People want their social network data consumed by other applications because it creates value for them. People want their attention data - well, actually they have no idea what “attention data” means - so that the experience they carry in their heads as memories are reflected back into the services they use. People want their purchase data from Amazon piped into Netflix (and vice versa) so that each site stops recommending the same damn movie.

Data Portability, of course, enables all of this, which is why it’s such a great project. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking mainstream America is concerned about some evil corporation having a stranglehold on their data. All that matters is if people leverage the data in their minds within their computing experience.

Tomorrow I’ll write about the need for a universal identity reference service. Facebook began it with “List the people you reference in your post” and Twitter continued it with @username. It’s brilliant and has far-reaching effects, I think.

For now, have a good night.

Gotta love a word like “normalcy”, and Wikipedia for having an entry on it.

So many things have happened since my last post, so I’ll cut right to it.

1. I left Amazon to go work for Etsy.

Here’s the story. When I was at Amazon, I ran a lunch group and email list called tech chatter. I thought of it a month into my employment at Amazon, and pitched it to my then-boss Aileen Sandridge. (Useless trivia fact #1: her younger sister Manny is friends with my friends from college, and would come party at my house. I didn’t know any of this until I moved to Seattle. Also, Aileen’s husband was the bar raiser on my interview loop for Amazon. Like I said, useless, but damn it, it’s my blog, I can do what I want.) By June 2006, I got my head on straight enough to start it, so Community Tech Chatter was born. We’d talk about whatever was interesting in the community space outside of Amazon. (Useless trivia fact #2: Community Tech Chatter was later renamed WWD Tech Chatter, to include all of World Wide Discovery, the now non-existent organization which had been run by the inspiring Kim Rachmeler.) Around December 2006, I stumbled upon Etsy and fell in love with it. “What amazing items!” and “A tag-based catalog!”.

Ever since I started in community, I always wanted to, one day, be able to do what Kim did so well - manage Community and Personalization at an e-commerce company. Why? Because I love delighting people and fostering strong relationships. I blame my parents. I knew that I was probably decades away from doing so at Amazon, and likely a decade away from doing so at a smaller company. So I kept trucking along, working as a software developer in Community and then, seizing a rare opportunity, became the product/program manager for Personalized Recommendations - a group that was as well known, accomplished, and mystical as any.

So I did that for 6 months and loved every minute of it. I felt like, for someon