Let me through — I outrank PageRank

From Advertising Age.

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Major media companies are increasingly lobbying Google to elevate their expensive professional content within the search engine’s undifferentiated slush of results.

Many publishers resent the criteria Google uses to pick top results, starting with the original PageRank formula that depended on how many links a page got. But crumbling ad revenue is lending their push more urgency; this is no time to show up on the third page of Google search results. And as publishers renew efforts to sell some content online, moreover, they’re newly upset that Google’s algorithm penalizes paid content.

“You should not have a system,” one content executive said, “where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately.”

Glyn Moody is not impressed.

Let’s just get this right. The publishers resent the fact that the stuff other than “professional content” is rising to the top of Google searches, because of the PageRank algorithm. But wait, doesn’t the algorithm pick out the stuff that has most links – that is, those sources that people for some reason find, you know, more relevant?

So doesn’t this mean that the “professional content” isn’t, well, so relevant? Which means that the publisher are essentially getting what they deserve because their “professional content” isn’t actually good enough to attract people’s attention and link love?

And the idea that Google’s PageRank is somehow “penalising” paid content by not ignoring the fact that people are reading it less than other stuff, is just priceless. Maybe publishers might want to consider *why* their “professional content” is sinking like a stone, and why people aren’t linking to it? You know, little things like the fact it tends to regard itself as above the law – or the algorithm, in this case?

Darwin in statu pupillari

Well, well. So Charles D was a perfectly normal undergraduate for his day.

Two hundred years after Charles Darwin’s birth, historians have gained new insight into his days as a student at Cambridge after unearthing bills that record intimate details of how he spent his money.

The revolutionary scientist was, it would appear, ahead of his time in his willingness to pay extra to supplement his daily intake of vegetables. And, as one would expect of a 19th-century gentleman, he was happy to pay others to carry out menial tasks for him, such as stoking his fire and polishing his shoes.

But there is little to suggest that he bought many books, or that he did much else to further his studies. The evolutionist famously spent little of his time studying or in lectures, preferring to shoot, ride and collect beetles.

The records, which were found in six previously overlooked college books, are due to be published online tomorrow on the Complete Works of Charles Darwin website (darwin-online.org.uk). They allow historians to pinpoint the date of his arrival at Christ’s College (26 January 1828), as well as providing previously unknown detail of his undergraduate life.

Darwin’s time at Cambridge, from 1828 to 1831 – which he would later describe as “the most joyful of my happy life” – is also one for which there is a comparative shortage of information. “Before this, we didn’t really know very much about Darwin’s daily life at Cambridge at all,” said Dr John van Wyhe, director of the Darwin website. “It had been assumed that there were no significant traces of his time here left to discover, which meant that we were short of information about one of the most formative parts of his life.

Now, in his 200th anniversary year, we have found a real treasure trove right in the middle of Cambridge.”

As it happens, I was in the Zoology Museum the other night, at the launch of the Cambridge Science Festival, when I came on some display cases showing some of Darwin’s finches (above) and the beetle collection he amassed during his time as a student (below).

There’s something magical about coming face to face with objects like this. They have the ‘aura’ that Walter Benjamin used to go on about in The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

The IT infrastructure of a national security state

Ross Anderson, Ian Brown and colleagues have just released their report on the Database State (available as a pdf from here). They surveyed the central databases that hold information on every aspect of our lives, from health and education to welfare, law–enforcement and tax. Their conclusion (in a nutshell) is that:

All of these systems had a rationale and purpose. But this report shows how, in too many cases, the public are neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of
personal information invading every aspect of our lives.

Ross had a brisk exchange with Michael Wills (a classic New Labour apparatchik) on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning.

Zittrain unpacked

Every so often, a group of my Open University colleagues gathers to discuss a book that one of us regards as important or interesting. Last week it was my turn to talk about Jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet — and how to stop it. The mp3 of the talk is here. The sound quality is variable, I’m afraid, and I only had one microphone, so it’s not Radio 4 quality. It runs for about an hour and includes a delicious excerpt from James Boyle’s recent RSA lecture.

If you’re listening to it, you might find the slide below helpful.

Alternatively, you might find it a cure for insomnia.

And if you’re podcast-averse, Doug Clow did an excellent live blog of the talk, for which many thanks to him.

Thinking about taking your iPod on holiday? Think again

From Canada.com.

OTTAWA – The federal government is secretly negotiating an agreement to revamp international copyright laws which could make the information on Canadian iPods, laptop computers or other personal electronic devices illegal and greatly increase the difficulty of travelling with such devices.

The deal could also impose strict regulations on Internet service providers, forcing those companies to hand over customer information without a court order.

Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA, the new plan would see Canada join other countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, to form an international coalition against copyright infringement.

The agreement is being structured much like the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA except it will create rules and regulations regarding private copying and copyright laws.

Federal trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval.

The deal would create a international regulator that could turn border guards and other public security personnel into copyright police. The security officials would be charged with checking laptops, iPods and even cellular phones for content that "infringes" on copyright laws, such as ripped CDs and movies.

Thanks to Rex Hughes for the link.

What they ought to have known about Northern Rock

From Robert Peston’s blog.

The National Audit Office’s report into the events leading up to the nationalisation of Northern Rock can be captured in three simple points, none of which will surprise you:

Northern Rock branch1) In 2004 and subsequently, the Treasury – under the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown – didn't appreciate that banks were taking on dangerous risks by becoming dependent for funds on wholesale markets, and didn’t see the urgency of making adequate preparations for the possible collapse of those banks (even though it recognised that it didn’t have an adequate system for dealing with such crises);

2) In the autumn of 2007, the Treasury – under the current Chancellor, Alistair Darling – didn’t expect house prices to fall by more than a few percentage points and didn’t believe the UK would suffer a recession;

3) Until far too late, all the authorities – the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority in particular – had a hopelessly naïve view that Northern Rock was not taking excessive risks by providing 100% mortgages at the top of the housing market.

Streaming to the future

Jason Calcanis says:

I’m going to be starting my own show in the next two weeks called “This Week in Startups” (place holder up at www.thisweekinstartups.com). More details on the show shortly… it’s basically going to be our emails in stream video format. :-)

For background: Streaming video is actually working these days and these show get in the low thousands of viewers live–and hundreds of thousands of viewers after their live viewings. We’re actually seeing the beginnings of a real business emerging. We built out Mahalo’s Studio for < $20,000 and it looks as good as Charlie Rose's studio (in fact we based it on his studio). At this point we can run a live show for $50 to $500 an hour depending on the staff setup (i.e. one video switcher no camera operators, or up to three or four folks running the studio). Think about that: running a live television studio reaching thousands of people in 16:9 with almost HD streaming, perfect lighting, professional audio and live video switching... setup for $20,000. Five years ago that would be $250,000 and ten years ago it would have been one million. I'm thinking we're going to let folks use the studio from time-to-time to live stream in exchange for them promoting Mahalo Answers on the air. It's just crazy! The world is changing... quickly.

Obama’s ‘Katrina Moment’?

Further to my earlier musings, it seems to me that the growing public outrage in the US (and elsewhere, including the UK) about the behaviour and mores of the banking sector poses a serious risk to politics-as-usual. Although the analogy is regularly discounted by contemporary sages, I keep thinking of what happened in Germany during the Great Depression, when the perceived incompetence of the political establishment at a time of economic emergency provided fertile ground for the rise of Nazism.

The rising level of popular rage in the US poses a real challenge to the Obama administration. It will take consummate political skill to manage and assuage it. All the evidence we’ve seen so far suggests that (a) the president is the only person in the Administration who possesses those skills, and (b) that many of his key appointees don’t possess them in the smallest measure. A case in point is Larry Summers, who may have a four-digit IQ, but has the political and emotional sensibilities of a dead cat.

Frank Rich made this point in a terrific OpEd piece in the NYT today.

Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Summers the simple question that has haunted the American public since the bailouts began last fall: “Do you know, Dr. Summers, what the banks have done with all of this money that has been funneled to them through these bailouts?” What followed was a monologue of evasion that, translated into English, amounted to: Not really, but you little folk needn’t worry about it.

Yet even as Summers spoke, A.I.G. was belatedly confirming what he would not. It has, in essence, been laundering its $170 billion in taxpayers’ money by paying off its reckless partners in gambling and greed, from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup on Wall Street to Société Générale and Deutsche Bank abroad.

Summers was even more highhanded in addressing the “retention bonuses” handed to the very employees who brokered all those bad bets. After reciting the requisite outrage talking point, he delivered a patronizing lecture to viewers of ABC’s “This Week” on how our “tradition of upholding law” made it impossible to abrogate the bonus agreements. It never occurred to Summers that Americans might know that contracts are renegotiated all the time — most conspicuously of late by the United Automobile Workers, which consented to givebacks as its contribution to the Detroit bailout plan. Nor did he note, for all his supposed reverence for the law, that the A.I.G. unit being rewarded with these bonuses is now under legal investigation by British and American authorities.

Summers is not the only tone-deaf appointee Obama has made. Most of the key figures in his Administration are poster children of the US Ivy League meritocracy — the kind of kids who, in other circumstances, would expect to have had great careers in the investment banks and hedge funds and law firms that presided over the current disaster. They have little empathy with ‘ordinary’ Americans, and know little of routine politics as it’s conducted on the ground. As such, they are walking disaster zones at such a sensitive and tricky time. what Obama needs around him now are not just liberal policy-wonks and rocket scientists, but old-fashioned pols (like the late Tip O’Neill, or even, Goddam it, Lyndon Johnson).

What happened in Germany was that the rage, fear and frustration of ‘ordinary’ people was turned on what they saw as a myopic, impotent and insensitive political establishment which appeared to be unaware of their concerns. In the end, they turned on that establishment — and gave the Nazis their opportunity. Something similar is beginning to happen in the US, and it’s scary. The US may never have produced a Hitler. But it did produce Joe MacCarthy.

When to listen to your users. And when to ignore them

Robert Scoble has a very insightful post about the row over FaceBook’s new look. (Apparently lots of users are up in arms about it.) He writes:

Here’s the phases of Facebook:

Phase 1. Harvard only.

Phase 2. Harvard+Colleges only.

Phase 3. Harvard+Colleges+Geeks only.

Phase 4. All those above+All People (in the social graph).

Phase 5. All those above+People and businesses in the social graph.

Phase 6. All those above+People, businesses, and well-known objects in the social graph.

Phase 7. All people, businesses, objects in the social graph.

Phase 5 is known as when Facebook is really going to find its business model. This is why Mark Zuckerberg is absolutely correct to say he can’t listen to people who wants Facebook to get stuck in Phase Four. It was a nice phase, yes, when Facebook only had people in the social graph, but those days are over.

Zuckerberg, in Scoble’s opinion, is a real leader because “he doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He’s going to do what he thinks is best for his business. I wish Silicon Valley had more like him.” So those who are saying the new design sucks “should NOT be listened to.”

Yeah, I know a lot of people are going to get mad at me for saying that. After all, how can a blogger say to not listen to the masses? Easy: I’ve seen the advice the masses are giving and most of it isn’t very good for Facebook’s business interests.

I suspect Scoble is right. It’s an interesting new slant on the Christensen dilemma, though. If you’re too attentive to your customers and your existing business model then you will be wiped out by disruptive innovation coming from elsewhere. On the other hand, if you don’t stay close to your customers then you may go out of business. I suppose the big difference with FaceBook is that it’s users aren’t really customers. They’re getting it for free.

Thanks to Jack Schofield for the original link.