I would like to see someone create an plugin that would give a warning if you went to a site that had used obnoxious legal bullying to harras small sites. I realize policing who gets shown on such a list would be a big job.
I would love to have someone reliable do this and then I could chose to just not deal with such sites (or decided well yeah I don't like using lawyers to bullying but I am willing to sell out my principle because this site is so cool I can't live without it).
The way to counter the strategy of paying lawyers lots of money to bully your small competitors is to setup a method that forces those companies to suffer the consequences for their decision. I would be happy to help that process, but I can't keep track of who is doing the bullying.
This type of providing better information so I (and others) can make informed decisions not to use sites with practices I find obnoxious is something I would really love to see. Both for this type of obnoxious behavior but really a platform could support all sorts of notices on whatever people object to (probably using lists from whatever they care about World Wildlife Fund, NRA, EFF or whoever).
I don't think the legal system is going to be reasonable. We need a solution that allows the market to enforce an acceptable code of conduct with consequences for being obnoxious (even if the legal system thinks it is fine).
I believe the marketplace would be greatly improved if we improved transparency to let us factor in bad behavior by companies to our decisions. I am sure tons of people don't care. But if enough people do care, it will mean companies have to pay for their decisions to engage in obnoxious behavior.
Comment on Hacker News related to: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network - help!
Related: How About Only Enforcing Copyright in Your Country if the Owner Allows Your Citizens To Buy Access - Good Behavior - AT&T's Attempt to Take Away Consumer's Rights Denied
Friday, June 01, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
When You HIre People That Principle Strength is Fleecing Others, Don't be Surprised When They Fleece You
Response to: JPM is Just a Symptom of Wider Corporate Governance Issue – Why Do Shareholders Matter Less and Less?
I have been outraged for quite some time by actions of corporate leaders taking from the corporation what they don't deserve. Sadly there are very few investment options to avoid insiders dipping buckets into the treasury and using it for their personal desires. Most of the time this is done within the bounds of the law (sometimes it isn't).
But when you want to invest in stocks sadly it is a matter of only excluding the most abusive executives from consideration (which includes any large financial institution I looked at so I never invested in them in the last 15 years). If you tried to exclude all companies that were being ripped off by the executives you can't find enough decent options. So you have to accept a certain percentage of the profits will be lost due to executive shrinkage.
They act like cleptocrate dictators - taking from what is owed to others because they can get away with it - not because it is somehow deserved. I have written about this over the years 2005: Excessive executive pay 2006: Obscene CEO Pay 2007: No Excessive Senior Executive Pay at Toyota or Honda, where Honda has Never had Layoffs and has been Profitable Every Year 2008: CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers 2009: Another Year of CEOs Taking Hugely Excessive Pay - CEO’s Castles and Company Performance 2011: Taking What You Don’t Deserve, CEO Style 2012: Massively Unjust Executive Compensation Damages Companies and Investments
The issue of shareholders finally getting tired of being ripped off by the executives of their companies reminds me of the statement by Martin Niemoeller "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist... Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me." The executives taking what they don't deserve isn't as important as societies not speaking up as liberty is taken away by police states but the process is similar.
Most of the people running our companies have no business doing so. They don't have the moral fiber to do so properly. They have systemically denied reasonable pay to employees, denied reasonable customer service to customers, denied to pay taxes owed (fleecing foolish tax authorities)... All in the name of taking more for themselves. It is not wonder, when their main focus seems to be how to fleece those they should be providing value to, that they turn on the owners and fleece them as they run out of others to fleece.
I have been outraged for quite some time by actions of corporate leaders taking from the corporation what they don't deserve. Sadly there are very few investment options to avoid insiders dipping buckets into the treasury and using it for their personal desires. Most of the time this is done within the bounds of the law (sometimes it isn't).
But when you want to invest in stocks sadly it is a matter of only excluding the most abusive executives from consideration (which includes any large financial institution I looked at so I never invested in them in the last 15 years). If you tried to exclude all companies that were being ripped off by the executives you can't find enough decent options. So you have to accept a certain percentage of the profits will be lost due to executive shrinkage.
They act like cleptocrate dictators - taking from what is owed to others because they can get away with it - not because it is somehow deserved. I have written about this over the years 2005: Excessive executive pay 2006: Obscene CEO Pay 2007: No Excessive Senior Executive Pay at Toyota or Honda, where Honda has Never had Layoffs and has been Profitable Every Year 2008: CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers 2009: Another Year of CEOs Taking Hugely Excessive Pay - CEO’s Castles and Company Performance 2011: Taking What You Don’t Deserve, CEO Style 2012: Massively Unjust Executive Compensation Damages Companies and Investments
The issue of shareholders finally getting tired of being ripped off by the executives of their companies reminds me of the statement by Martin Niemoeller "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist... Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me." The executives taking what they don't deserve isn't as important as societies not speaking up as liberty is taken away by police states but the process is similar.
Most of the people running our companies have no business doing so. They don't have the moral fiber to do so properly. They have systemically denied reasonable pay to employees, denied reasonable customer service to customers, denied to pay taxes owed (fleecing foolish tax authorities)... All in the name of taking more for themselves. It is not wonder, when their main focus seems to be how to fleece those they should be providing value to, that they turn on the owners and fleece them as they run out of others to fleece.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Using Twitter Data to Improve Search Results
Doesn't it seem pretty obvious that it would be possible to use Twitter mentions to improve search results?
I understand you would have to deal with people trying to "game the system." Google seems pretty good at doing this.
The nofollow attribute was suggested by Google as a way of marking untrusted links. I don't believe the application of that is great, but that was Google's plan. One weakness is the nofollow name is not the same message as untrusted link. This might not have mattered to Google originally but when you add confusion unnecessarily you open the door to problems.
Google then added to the problems by declaring paid for links should also be nofollow. Again Google confusing the issue - if they want paid links noted as paid it is fine for them to say that is what they would like. And if they want to treat paid links the same as untrusted links that is their option. I think it is a mistake but it is their option. Telling people they are suppose to mark links as nofollow when they are paid seems confused and lame to me.
Lately I have heard sources quote Google as saying we can't follow Twitter links because they told us not to. And those are saying that using the untrusted link text Google asked them to was how Twitter told Google not to follow the links.
So anyway here we are today and there are many ways for a search engine to decide some Twitter accounts are trustworthy and that links from those accounts are an indication of the merit of the site linked to. Why would you not use this information? Even if Twitter told you the links were untrustworthy (because they were worried about sanctions Google might impose if they linked to sites Google didn't like without making those links nofollow) that doesn't mean you couldn't use the data from Twitter links to improve results.
Maybe in the decision to use the term nofollow and then set standards for what Google would do around this link Google has put themselves in a position where they can't follow nofollow links and do what they said they would do. I am not sure about this. But if they can't take advantage of useful data to make search results better due to their previous mistake of calling a untrusted link nofollow they should correct that failure.
If sites want to tell Google not to follow links that is fine (to preserve server bandwidth or just because they don't like Google or whatever). But, I believe, most nofollow links are now used to
1) avoid sanctions by Google
2) keep "link juice" for the monetary benefit of the site that makes the link nofollow (ironically, that makes the non-nofollow links "follow" links essentially for monetary gain, which somewhat subverts Google's desire to remove monetary incentive from placing links)
It seems foolish to me to not use information that could make search results better. It seems to me valuable information to make search results better is now clouded by nofollow links. I certainly would be using that information if it were up to me. And my guess is you can use a large part of it even if the past decisions mean you can't follow the links (this likely would make the silly use of link shorteners more of an issue - but at least the urls that are actually shown could be used to improve search results).
I am pretty sure Google ignores useful measures hidden in nofollow data. I woudl guess the other search sites are ignoring it too, but I am not sure.
Related: Viewing Unpersonalized Google Search Results - Google Rank Patent for Delegation Authority Factors
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
PageRank Updates for May 2012
Pagerank is a value given to the links coming into a web page on a logarithmic scale. So a PR of 2 is 10 times greater than PR 1 and 100 less than PR 4. MozRank is a similar measure, developed by a separate company that is updated much more frequently. See more details on this topic in my previous post: Google PageRank and MozRank of some of my pages (Oct 2011)
Google updates the visible PageRank occasionally (often about every 3 months). The real pagerank Google updates much more frequently (it is only the pagerank shared with the rest of us that is only updated occasionally.
Check the current pagerank on your sites using our related site: Multiple Site PageRank checker.
* internal pages
** new url, old url forwarded
- didn't exist yet
u unranked
[blank] I don't know what the pagerank was, sometimes the site didn't exist yet.
*** Google doesn't say they use a scale of 10 for the logarithmic PageRank. It seems as good a guess and any and is easier to picture so I use that until we have some new evidence.
I have noticed a continued trend over the last 6-12 months for more instances of internal pages having Google Page Rank of 3 and above. For several years this seemed to be greatly reduced, in my experience.
The displayed pagerank is mainly a fun measure, rather than a measure of much importance. But I still find it fun to look at the pagerank values - except when they go down for my sites :-( Now I can take some solace if the MozRank goes up :-)
Monday, April 09, 2012
Can Mental Health Treatment Facilities Notice Healthy People?
On Being Sane In Insane Places by David L. Rosenhan
Despite their public “show” of sanity, the pseudopatients were never detected. Admitted, except in one case, with a diagnosis of schizophrenia,[4] each was discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia “in remission.” The label “in remission” should in no way be dismissed as a formality, for at no time during any hospitalization had any question been raised about any pseudopatient’s simulation. Nor are there any indications in the hospital records that the pseudopatient’s status was suspect. Rather, the evidence is strong that, once labeled schizophrenic, the pseudopatient was stuck with that label. If the pseudopatient was to be discharged, he must naturally be “in remission”; but he was not sane, nor, in the institution’s view, had he ever been sane.
The uniform failure to recognize sanity cannot be attributed to the quality of the hospitals, for, although there were considerable variations among them, several are considered excellent. Nor can it be alleged that there was simply not enough time to observe the pseudopatients. Length of hospitalization ranged from 7 to 52 days, with an average of 19 days. The pseudopatients were not, in fact, carefully observed, but this failure speaks more to traditions within psychiatric hospitals than to lack of opportunity.
Finally, it cannot be said that the failure to recognize the pseudopatients' sanity was due to the fact that they were not behaving sanely. While there was clearly some tension present in all of them, their daily visitors could detect no serious behavioral consequences—nor, indeed, could other patients. It was quite common for the patients to “detect” the pseudopatient’s sanity. During the first three hospitalizations, when accurate counts were kept, 35 of a total of 118 patients on the admissions ward voiced their suspicions, some vigorously. “You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist, or a professor (referring to the continual note-taking). You’re checking up on the hospital.” While most of the patients were reassured by the pseudopatient’s insistence that he had been sick before he came in but was fine now, some continued to believe that the pseudopatient was sane throughout his hospitalization. The fact that the patients often recognized normality when staff did not raises important questions.
This study was done in 1973, do you think the results would be any better today?
In looking around for current research I can't find much (that may be my fault). It does seem to me if mental health organizations or educational institutions cared about improvement they would do more real world research on what happens. I'm not sure who makes money from improving it so if the research has to be funded by someone with money to gain from the research that may explain it. That isn't a very healthy place for a health care system to be in.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Employee Benefits: Concierge Services
I would have to say actually good concierge services would rank very high up on my list of benefits I would actually care about a company providing. If the services are lame then it is probably more trouble than it is worth. But good concierge services would be a great benefit.
Some services help you fight the HMO nightmare. That would be another useful service (though one I guess companies would be less willing to provide. A great basketball gym would be high on my list also. As would flexible work schedules and telecommuting.
My Personal To-Do List? The Concierge Has It
The biggest thing I want now it to pay someone to do the stuff that is a bother for me. My attempts (to get this myself) so far show it isn't as easy as it sounds. Getting service that is actually good enough is tricky (often you waste so much time trying to explain what is needed you save none). Also I can't fit a huge cost in my budget so the services have to be fairly cheap (the larger companies tend to be hugely expensive).
Some services help you fight the HMO nightmare. That would be another useful service (though one I guess companies would be less willing to provide. A great basketball gym would be high on my list also. As would flexible work schedules and telecommuting.
My Personal To-Do List? The Concierge Has It
When Jonathan Swanson, a warehouse associate at Mercedes-Benz USA, was planning his honeymoon, he didn’t log on to a travel Web site or start a Google search. Instead, he picked up the phone and called Circles, a 24-hour personal concierge service that is a free benefit available to Mercedes-Benz USA employees.
The biggest thing I want now it to pay someone to do the stuff that is a bother for me. My attempts (to get this myself) so far show it isn't as easy as it sounds. Getting service that is actually good enough is tricky (often you waste so much time trying to explain what is needed you save none). Also I can't fit a huge cost in my budget so the services have to be fairly cheap (the larger companies tend to be hugely expensive).
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Systemic Waste in Society
The Caging of America
there are now more people under “correctional supervision” in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height
...
in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that.
The amount of wasted human potential and direct costs of such huge numbers of people in prison is a huge loss to society. Along with things like our broken health care system the damage to our society is enormous and yet we don't seem to be very interested in fixing the problem.
Sadly this is fairly typical; we don't seem to be interested in fixing any of our problems. Instead we just seem to hope the good forces (entrepreneurism, successful businesses, scientific breakthroughs, existing wealth, hard work...) can do enough to make up for the wastes (prison, bailouts for too-big-to-fail-institutions, healthcare costs, anti-market favors for big political donors [flawed intellectual property rules, failure to preserve competitive markets - allowing companies to buy competitors to eliminate competition...], security theatre...).
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Using Bayesian Analysis to Filter Hacker News To Your Preferences
Very cool post on code to use bayesian analysis to filter Hacker News for your preferences.
My comment:
Very cool. It would be nice if you could include data on users that up-voted the story. My guess is you don't have access to that data though. But if you did I would think that could be a very useful test. Even getting things like if these 2 or 3 people liked it super big bonus points... And even learning, either bozos that like stupid stuff or spammers so that if it learns big up-votes from those people is a negative (not a positive). At the very beginning of using Reddit I thought they were doing that kind of stuff when displaying the home page. I thought my preferences were being stored so that it could judge what I would like (not just to bump that story up). It would be cool if Reddit and/or HN could at least let us say add this person to my recommended list (and then highlight all stories those people up-vote).
Friday, February 17, 2012
Systems Thinking: The Later You Are Picked The Better Off You Are
As a kid I would hear people say how mean it was to have kids being picked for sports. Which mainly made me think of how incredibly wimpy we have become. But that isn't what got me writing this post. I always figured the later I got picked the better. My team was going to be pulled from the same pool of people. My belief was people could judge the ability of others to some extent but with plenty of room for error.
So if I am the second person chosen that means my team will be filled would likely have a significantly worse teammate than if I am the second to last person chosen. This first came up in gym class. I really couldn't understand this pretty obvious analysis was not appreciated by people. I still don't, frankly. But I do think I now understand psychology a bit better.
It is a rather silly bit of psychology that leads people to worry about when they are selected. But lots of people let themselves get worked up with silly psychology when they would be better off realizing how silly it is to worry about some thing they can choose to let bother them.
I can understand kids wanting to be liked and appreciated. Attaching much value to what order you are chosen for in some sport to your desire to be liked a appreciated is pretty silly. But I suppose if lots of kids do it (which may well be true) perhaps eliminating picking sides is a fine counter-measure. My desire would actually be to have us learn not to worry about stuff that shouldn't worry us (build up emotional intelligence instead of deciding anything that might potentially make anyone uncomfortable needs to be avoided). But if we are unable to that, fine not having kids pick the teams is ok.
The value of being picked later increases in pick up games. When the winning team gets to keep playing, while the losers might have to sit out until it is their turn again. My appearance on the court has never been very impressive so I am often picked later than I probably would be if I looked more impressive. And that has helped me be on better teams more frequently.
I see it as my innate appreciation of systems thinking that let me see the value of being picked late. The only time this would worry me is if there were more people waiting to play than spots to be chosen, then I had to hope I didn't drop so far I had to sit out the first game.
If I played at the same place too often my advantage of being picked really late often suffered. Still it is funny because quite often the person that is suppose to cover me is blamed (how could you let that bozo score), more than I am credited so I can still be picked later and gain that advantage.
I realize some kids won't be able to understand the logic that the best result is for them to be picked later. But you might want to give it a try. Perhaps it can jump start an interest in thinking about what system impacts different scenarios have. And how you can benefit from situations where others might try to make you think you should feel sad.
Related: Flaws in Understanding Psychology Lead to Flawed Management - The Illusion of Explanatory Depth
So if I am the second person chosen that means my team will be filled would likely have a significantly worse teammate than if I am the second to last person chosen. This first came up in gym class. I really couldn't understand this pretty obvious analysis was not appreciated by people. I still don't, frankly. But I do think I now understand psychology a bit better.
It is a rather silly bit of psychology that leads people to worry about when they are selected. But lots of people let themselves get worked up with silly psychology when they would be better off realizing how silly it is to worry about some thing they can choose to let bother them.
I can understand kids wanting to be liked and appreciated. Attaching much value to what order you are chosen for in some sport to your desire to be liked a appreciated is pretty silly. But I suppose if lots of kids do it (which may well be true) perhaps eliminating picking sides is a fine counter-measure. My desire would actually be to have us learn not to worry about stuff that shouldn't worry us (build up emotional intelligence instead of deciding anything that might potentially make anyone uncomfortable needs to be avoided). But if we are unable to that, fine not having kids pick the teams is ok.
The value of being picked later increases in pick up games. When the winning team gets to keep playing, while the losers might have to sit out until it is their turn again. My appearance on the court has never been very impressive so I am often picked later than I probably would be if I looked more impressive. And that has helped me be on better teams more frequently.
I see it as my innate appreciation of systems thinking that let me see the value of being picked late. The only time this would worry me is if there were more people waiting to play than spots to be chosen, then I had to hope I didn't drop so far I had to sit out the first game.
If I played at the same place too often my advantage of being picked really late often suffered. Still it is funny because quite often the person that is suppose to cover me is blamed (how could you let that bozo score), more than I am credited so I can still be picked later and gain that advantage.
I realize some kids won't be able to understand the logic that the best result is for them to be picked later. But you might want to give it a try. Perhaps it can jump start an interest in thinking about what system impacts different scenarios have. And how you can benefit from situations where others might try to make you think you should feel sad.
Related: Flaws in Understanding Psychology Lead to Flawed Management - The Illusion of Explanatory Depth
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Make Your Blog Welcoming
Good tips to make your blog welcoming, for first time and new visitors:
1) have a design that is distinctive (readers judge credibility partially on design) - also for 2nd and 3rd time readers it helps to have something they remember visiting before.
2) A photo of you helps as people connect visually. Which also helps them remember site on future visits.
3) About page that tells them what this place is about.
4) Let them see a list of popular posts, favorite posts...
5) Categories or tags can help - they can see what you focus on and can find more on topics they are interested in
6) Make RSS subscription link easy to see Curious Cat Management blog - About us page Curious Cat Science and Engineering blog - about us page
1) have a design that is distinctive (readers judge credibility partially on design) - also for 2nd and 3rd time readers it helps to have something they remember visiting before.
2) A photo of you helps as people connect visually. Which also helps them remember site on future visits.
3) About page that tells them what this place is about.
4) Let them see a list of popular posts, favorite posts...
5) Categories or tags can help - they can see what you focus on and can find more on topics they are interested in
6) Make RSS subscription link easy to see Curious Cat Management blog - About us page Curious Cat Science and Engineering blog - about us page
Thursday, January 26, 2012
USA Falls to 47th in Press Freedom Ranking
Reporters Without Borders released the latest ranking of countries press freedom.
The United States fell 27 places to 47th due to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests.
It is one more indication of the erosion of liberty in the USA.
Related: Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Money Is Corrupting Our Political Process
I like capitalism. I support those who provide benefit to society (as expressed by the market) being rewarded with money by the market.
We have allowed our politicians in the USA to focus on money instead of doing the business of the people. The corruption is fundamental and endemic. The liberty the founders of the USA gave us an opportunity to enjoy has been greatly impinged upon and the system continues to do harm.
It is hard to appreciate and understand the situation. Those benefiting from the current system are very effective at using every lever they have to continue the current corrupt system. Lawrence Lessig provides an excellent review of where we are.
Related: rootstrikers - Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Health Care System Needs Much More Reform - Lessig Video: Information Revolution
We have allowed our politicians in the USA to focus on money instead of doing the business of the people. The corruption is fundamental and endemic. The liberty the founders of the USA gave us an opportunity to enjoy has been greatly impinged upon and the system continues to do harm.
It is hard to appreciate and understand the situation. Those benefiting from the current system are very effective at using every lever they have to continue the current corrupt system. Lawrence Lessig provides an excellent review of where we are.
Related: rootstrikers - Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Health Care System Needs Much More Reform - Lessig Video: Information Revolution
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress
Written for my management blog blackout in support of those fighting SOPA and PIPA:
This site is participating in the SOPA/PIPA blackout day. Sadly I don't have a simple way to just have this page for the USA and I decided having it show for everyone was better than not showing it.
As this is a management blog, I would like to explain my analysis of this situation. The SOPA and PIPA bills are not special cause results. They are the natural outcome of the current anti-liberty system in place in Washington DC. As such the proper counter-measure is not to band-aid this negative outcome and think you have done well. If you need a band-aid counter measure immediately, that is fine. But if you don't then look at the system creating that result: the bad result will just reappear.
My belief on the systemic cause is the anti-liberty sentiment in congress. This creates the conditions where lots of extremely bad anti-liberty laws are proposed and passed. SOPA and PIPA happened to be so horrible that an huge outcry they couldn't ignore and push through (most likely, it is still possible they might). But that is all. SOPA and PIPA are the natural result of the current system. They are not some special outlier that you can block and then be confident the system is working.
There are a few other systemic issues that contribute to the extremely bad law that SOPA and PIPA would be. A profound lack of basic understanding of technology. A profound lack of understanding of copyright. Those are compounded by a profound lack of respect of knowledge (so ignorance is not seen as any reason to act cautiously or seek expertise). A system where large amounts of cash seem to drive policy much more than anything else. Add those to the anti-liberty agenda of the last decade and you will continue to get SOPAs and PIPAs.
Where we are today
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Wendell Phillips
which is often quoted as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Richard Jackson (maybe)
Those outside the USA
Several other countries have already had the USA coerce their governments into adopting legislation desired by those who "donated" (in other words gave cash to) American politicians. I am surprised none of those countries has reversed the decision to harm their citizens as a favor to those paying American politicians cash but I don't think any have. If you live in one of those countries maybe you should see about getting rid of the people that do such things to your country. And the State Department may well be pressuring for SOPA like laws right now.
The USA's Anti-Liberty Agenda
Sadly the USA has been on a kick to reduce liberty and increase government and corporate power over liberty of citizens. I have written about the attacks on liberty on another of my blogs.
SOPA and PIPA are the recent outcome of this mindset of those in congress today. The attempts to payoff a few of the lobbyists that give them large amounts of cash has resulted in many bills; SOPA and PIPA being the current examples. They have become so used to egregious anti-liberty legislation being ignored that they allowed the lobbyists to go so far in writing SOPA and PIPA that even the normal apathy was overcome.
It appears they realize the price of their favors to those giving them lots of cash (for their campaigns) is too high in this case. People actually noticed how egregious the attacks on liberty were. And the reactions by those people have made it seem that the consequences to the politicians of passing the law (that they wanted to pass before the consequences to themselves was made obvious) are now too high.
Given past conduct I would expect them to bow to the current pressure and just sneak in most of the bad policy (to pay back those giving them cash) into future bills. They also seem to be trying to say by getting rid of a couple of the most vile parts of the laws that the rest of the payoffs to those giving them cash should be ok.
I was amazed when the politicians were able to withstand the maelstrom of criticism about he security theater/anti-liberty practices of TSA. So how far they are willing to fight in order to pay off contributors and further the anti-liberty agenda I am not sure. But the evidence seems to be pretty far. I would expect they will not learn from this and continue their normal conduct, which will mean continued attempts to pass similar measures.
Until we refuse to elect people that are willing to sacrifice liberty for their personal short term interests we have risks of such laws passing. Only extraordinary efforts seem capable of rolling back small pieces of the anti-liberty agenda currently being pushed by both parties in Washington DC. But it is only because the public lets them get away with it. So it is really our problem. If we want to stop the anti-liberty agenda (of which SOPA and PIPA are a minor, though dramatically flawed example) we need to stop electing those that support it.
There is an App to Help You Avoid Supporting Companies Actively Undermining Your Rights through their support for SOPA and PIPA.
Librarians Standing Up to the Madness
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
SOPA/PIPA resources:
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.
This site is participating in the SOPA/PIPA blackout day. Sadly I don't have a simple way to just have this page for the USA and I decided having it show for everyone was better than not showing it.
As this is a management blog, I would like to explain my analysis of this situation. The SOPA and PIPA bills are not special cause results. They are the natural outcome of the current anti-liberty system in place in Washington DC. As such the proper counter-measure is not to band-aid this negative outcome and think you have done well. If you need a band-aid counter measure immediately, that is fine. But if you don't then look at the system creating that result: the bad result will just reappear.
My belief on the systemic cause is the anti-liberty sentiment in congress. This creates the conditions where lots of extremely bad anti-liberty laws are proposed and passed. SOPA and PIPA happened to be so horrible that an huge outcry they couldn't ignore and push through (most likely, it is still possible they might). But that is all. SOPA and PIPA are the natural result of the current system. They are not some special outlier that you can block and then be confident the system is working.
There are a few other systemic issues that contribute to the extremely bad law that SOPA and PIPA would be. A profound lack of basic understanding of technology. A profound lack of understanding of copyright. Those are compounded by a profound lack of respect of knowledge (so ignorance is not seen as any reason to act cautiously or seek expertise). A system where large amounts of cash seem to drive policy much more than anything else. Add those to the anti-liberty agenda of the last decade and you will continue to get SOPAs and PIPAs.
Where we are today
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Wendell Phillips
which is often quoted as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Richard Jackson (maybe)
Those outside the USA
Several other countries have already had the USA coerce their governments into adopting legislation desired by those who "donated" (in other words gave cash to) American politicians. I am surprised none of those countries has reversed the decision to harm their citizens as a favor to those paying American politicians cash but I don't think any have. If you live in one of those countries maybe you should see about getting rid of the people that do such things to your country. And the State Department may well be pressuring for SOPA like laws right now.
The USA's Anti-Liberty Agenda
Sadly the USA has been on a kick to reduce liberty and increase government and corporate power over liberty of citizens. I have written about the attacks on liberty on another of my blogs.
SOPA and PIPA are the recent outcome of this mindset of those in congress today. The attempts to payoff a few of the lobbyists that give them large amounts of cash has resulted in many bills; SOPA and PIPA being the current examples. They have become so used to egregious anti-liberty legislation being ignored that they allowed the lobbyists to go so far in writing SOPA and PIPA that even the normal apathy was overcome.
It appears they realize the price of their favors to those giving them lots of cash (for their campaigns) is too high in this case. People actually noticed how egregious the attacks on liberty were. And the reactions by those people have made it seem that the consequences to the politicians of passing the law (that they wanted to pass before the consequences to themselves was made obvious) are now too high.
Given past conduct I would expect them to bow to the current pressure and just sneak in most of the bad policy (to pay back those giving them cash) into future bills. They also seem to be trying to say by getting rid of a couple of the most vile parts of the laws that the rest of the payoffs to those giving them cash should be ok.
I was amazed when the politicians were able to withstand the maelstrom of criticism about he security theater/anti-liberty practices of TSA. So how far they are willing to fight in order to pay off contributors and further the anti-liberty agenda I am not sure. But the evidence seems to be pretty far. I would expect they will not learn from this and continue their normal conduct, which will mean continued attempts to pass similar measures.
Until we refuse to elect people that are willing to sacrifice liberty for their personal short term interests we have risks of such laws passing. Only extraordinary efforts seem capable of rolling back small pieces of the anti-liberty agenda currently being pushed by both parties in Washington DC. But it is only because the public lets them get away with it. So it is really our problem. If we want to stop the anti-liberty agenda (of which SOPA and PIPA are a minor, though dramatically flawed example) we need to stop electing those that support it.
There is an App to Help You Avoid Supporting Companies Actively Undermining Your Rights through their support for SOPA and PIPA.
Librarians Standing Up to the Madness
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
SOPA/PIPA resources:
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
App to Help You Avoid Supporting Companies Actively Undermining Your Rights
Use the power of the internet to avoid supporting companies that actively seek to take away your rights: Android app to scan bar codes and reveal if the company supports taking away your liberty via SOPA.
I am all for these kind of transparency initiatives. Shinning the light on the dirty dealing going on is a way to clean things up. Given that we chose to elect people that are more concerned with pleasing those that give them cash that protecting liberty it is more important that we act on our beliefs (or we will see them sold away).
With transparency we can then choose what we want to support. I believe, with transparency many will decide they don't really care about principle and can more about whatever is cheapest or easiest. At least we then get the society we chose. I may well not like some of the choices, but I would rather have transparency let people make the choices than the lobbyist written legislation we have slipped into the last few decades.
If there turn out to be consequences for trying to remove basic rights from people, companies will stop. Otherwise they will continue.
Related: Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Liberty Again Denied, It is Sad How Little We Care - Freedom Increasingly at Risk
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Liberty Again Denied - It is Sad How Little We Seem to Care
When I was growing up I knew the world wasn't perfect. The government had plenty of problems. And politicians were often more concerned about their egos than the good of the country. And things like the McCarthy witch-hunts, Japanese internment, denying voting rights to blacks, Watergate were not far in the past. But I never imagined how far the government would move to eliminate liberty. I remember thinking how sad it was that perfectly fine books were banned in the past. And yes, some silly little town here or there would remove books from libraries or schools. That was sad but fairly minor. But it seemed to me we now had finally learned how horrid our actions in things like the Japanese internment and McCarthy witch-hunts were.
Watergate was something plenty of politicians did to some degree or another but they had the sense to be ashamed and hide it. That is different from endorsing and pushing policies to deny liberty to people.
I remember thinking how strange it was how concerned our founding fathers were with protecting us from government. I understood why historically. But it seemed like those days were long past. Yes, occasionally government would overstep but that was getting cleaned up or just some corruption that is likely to always exist to some extent.
The sad fact is, today I am in the position of our founding fathers and much more worried about what the government will do to us that inspired by what the government provides us. This is sad. The types of behavior Homeland Security has been engaging in can be stopped if we elect people that care about liberty. I am much more disappointed in the last 10 years than Watergate. We are currently on par with Japanese internment and the McCarthy which-hunts. That is in extremely sad place to be. I think we are probably a step below those embarrassments but we are not far from them.
We need leaders that can steer us away from the path we have been taking. I am scared for where we will be soon, if we don't find them.
Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
This type of behavior (ignoring liberty, acting like citizens and the constitution don't matter, acting like the governments our founding father's were afraid of) makes it extremely hard to give the government the benefit of the doubt in cases where the issues are more debatable. I'll agree some issues the government has to deal with are challenging. But if you want to have our understanding on the difficult choices and tradeoffs the government has to make you can't consistently trample on our rights for no reason.
Denying the first amendment rights should be an action the government takes in only the most extreme circumstances. But instead we have a government that believes it should be free to deny first amendment rights consistently and if people fight really hard maybe the government will give in after awhile and no-one in government will care about the complete abdication of the bill of rights that is suppose to protect us from a government that could seek to act on the principle that might makes it right. How any politician accepts seeing the constitution shredded like this is beyond me. But then again it seems we don't elect people that care about what our founding father's did. That is our fault. And it is very dangerous.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
Related: Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Bikinis For Liberty - Tired of Incompetent Government Harassment
Watergate was something plenty of politicians did to some degree or another but they had the sense to be ashamed and hide it. That is different from endorsing and pushing policies to deny liberty to people.
I remember thinking how strange it was how concerned our founding fathers were with protecting us from government. I understood why historically. But it seemed like those days were long past. Yes, occasionally government would overstep but that was getting cleaned up or just some corruption that is likely to always exist to some extent.
The sad fact is, today I am in the position of our founding fathers and much more worried about what the government will do to us that inspired by what the government provides us. This is sad. The types of behavior Homeland Security has been engaging in can be stopped if we elect people that care about liberty. I am much more disappointed in the last 10 years than Watergate. We are currently on par with Japanese internment and the McCarthy which-hunts. That is in extremely sad place to be. I think we are probably a step below those embarrassments but we are not far from them.
We need leaders that can steer us away from the path we have been taking. I am scared for where we will be soon, if we don't find them.
Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine's offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company's printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building.
Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine's lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that's a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.
But, in a story that's been in the making for over a year, and which we're exposing to the public for the first time now, this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year -- with the only difference being that, rather than "a printing press" and a "magazine," the story involved "a domain" and a "blog."
This type of behavior (ignoring liberty, acting like citizens and the constitution don't matter, acting like the governments our founding father's were afraid of) makes it extremely hard to give the government the benefit of the doubt in cases where the issues are more debatable. I'll agree some issues the government has to deal with are challenging. But if you want to have our understanding on the difficult choices and tradeoffs the government has to make you can't consistently trample on our rights for no reason.
Denying the first amendment rights should be an action the government takes in only the most extreme circumstances. But instead we have a government that believes it should be free to deny first amendment rights consistently and if people fight really hard maybe the government will give in after awhile and no-one in government will care about the complete abdication of the bill of rights that is suppose to protect us from a government that could seek to act on the principle that might makes it right. How any politician accepts seeing the constitution shredded like this is beyond me. But then again it seems we don't elect people that care about what our founding father's did. That is our fault. And it is very dangerous.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
Related: Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Bikinis For Liberty - Tired of Incompetent Government Harassment
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Most Popular Post on the Curious Cat Comments Blog
One of the updates, with the suite of updates earlier this year by Blogger, was to show you the number of views for each blog post (I haven't even bothered to add Google Analytics to this blog though maybe I will soon). Here are the 11 most popular posts on this blog (based on page-views since May 2009 - the latest data Google seems to use):
- New President's To Do List (2008)
- Designing Cities for People, Rather than Cars (2007)
- Viewing Unpersonalized Google Search Results
- Programmable New York Times On the Way (2008)
- More Evidence of the Bad Patent System
- Wordpress Plugins: Super Cache and Bad Behavior (2009)
- How to Install Anything in Ubuntu! (2007)
- Davidson Students Get Free Sweet Sixteen Trip (2008)
- Last Google Toolbar PageRank Update of 2008
- Watch the Full I Have a Dream Speech (2009)
- They Will Know We are Christians By Our Love (2010)
Thursday, December 01, 2011
New YouTube Website - Good Progress, But Late
YouTube is an amazing web service. From Google's purchase of YouTube I was convinced they would do very well with their investment (even with the majority opinion being that they paid way too much). I think most know appreciate how valuable YouTube is (as a service and a profit center for Google).
I have been amazed how poorly done the YouTube web site has been. They have put in place a new site design today. It seems like a big improvement. Still, most of it seems like stuff that could have been done 3 years ago. I don't understand why they have been so slow to improve the website.
The home page is much better for seeing what new content has been added on those channels I am subscribed to.
It will take me some time to see if they have done better at showing me content I might enjoy. I can't believe how bad the existing site had been at doing this - showing me content I might like.
The definitely should let me remove useless buttons like Facebook (connect). I guess the popularity of Facebook makes defaulting to including the button ok, but don't make everyone that has no intention of using Facebook (or linking YouTube and Facebook accounts) have that button in prime navigation location.
I should be able to decline a suggested channel (and get new suggestions).
I can't see that browse has been improved much (it seems a bit of a UI improvement at the top). Which is very lame. This should be extremely valuable - instead it is lame.
Netflix is so cheap now ($3.5 billion market cap), maybe Google should be buy it and use their preference matching and content suggestion technology. At the very least hire a great team of engineers (money should essentially not be an issue - they could have all the money they would need - doing this well should bring hundreds of millions to Google) and have them create a much much much better job of suggesting YouTube content for users.
Related: 6 years Later Goolge Acts To Let Me Block Sites I don't want to see - How Google Should Improve (2006) - Web Search Improvements (2005) - YouTube Uses Multivariate Experiment To Improve Sign-ups 15% - Google Stock Price Rises 5.7% Today (to $255), Why? (2005)
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Netflix is Well Managed - People are Overreacting to Short Term Issues
Netflix and the Data that Lied
I didn't get the idea of splitting up the company. And that logic seems even more questionable now that they reversed it. But I still think Netflix is very well run. I tend to believe we make a mistake when jump all over short term issues for companies that have long term positive track records.
Now I don't have a huge number of companies that I think have long term positive management track records. But I think Netflix is one of them. And just like all those jumping on Toyota a few years ago were mistaken (as I said at the time and still believe) I believe those thinking Netflix made huge errors are wrong. Toyota made some mistakes. They still were and are better managed than 98% (or more) of companies.
Netflix has made some mistakes. My belief is the underlying business realities forced difficult choices. Just sitting around doing nothing (and not "angering customers" was not an option. They could have handled it better. But once again I think they are better managed than most all companies - I don't trust them as much as Toyota.
Their stock price (given the business) seemed insane to me. I liked the management wanted to invest with them. Couldn't see doing it based on the stock price. I will be looking at them again.
Today Amazon falls into that camp for me. I love the management and business for Amazon. The stock price just seems way to high given the risks (and limited profits so far). I sold my shares in the last year (below where it is at now). I hope I can buy again, but at these prices I just can't see it. If the business improves a lot and the stock price even increases I could buy (it isn't the absolute price it is the price given everything I know and believe now).
The businesses Amazon and Netflix are in are challenging and full of risk.
Netflix stock price Nov 1, 2011 (when this was posted): $80.09.
Updates: Jan 19, 2012 stock price: $103.46.
March 10, 2004: $440
Related: Amazon Keeps Spending, Sales Growing But Not Income - Reacting to Product Problems
This past summer, high-riding Netflix announced an increase of 60 percent in the price of a combination of data streams and DVDs. Netflix subscribers were upset. Then, the company trumped that by announcing that, henceforth, DVDs and streaming would be handled by two different companies, requiring subscribers to use two different web sites.
The result was a net loss of 800,000 subscribers in the third quarter. Netflix stock was trading at close to $300 in mid-July. Today it's trading around $80.
The result was a net loss of 800,000 subscribers in the third quarter. Netflix stock was trading at close to $300 in mid-July. Today it's trading around $80.
I didn't get the idea of splitting up the company. And that logic seems even more questionable now that they reversed it. But I still think Netflix is very well run. I tend to believe we make a mistake when jump all over short term issues for companies that have long term positive track records.
Now I don't have a huge number of companies that I think have long term positive management track records. But I think Netflix is one of them. And just like all those jumping on Toyota a few years ago were mistaken (as I said at the time and still believe) I believe those thinking Netflix made huge errors are wrong. Toyota made some mistakes. They still were and are better managed than 98% (or more) of companies.
Netflix has made some mistakes. My belief is the underlying business realities forced difficult choices. Just sitting around doing nothing (and not "angering customers" was not an option. They could have handled it better. But once again I think they are better managed than most all companies - I don't trust them as much as Toyota.
Their stock price (given the business) seemed insane to me. I liked the management wanted to invest with them. Couldn't see doing it based on the stock price. I will be looking at them again.
Today Amazon falls into that camp for me. I love the management and business for Amazon. The stock price just seems way to high given the risks (and limited profits so far). I sold my shares in the last year (below where it is at now). I hope I can buy again, but at these prices I just can't see it. If the business improves a lot and the stock price even increases I could buy (it isn't the absolute price it is the price given everything I know and believe now).
The businesses Amazon and Netflix are in are challenging and full of risk.
Netflix stock price Nov 1, 2011 (when this was posted): $80.09.
Updates: Jan 19, 2012 stock price: $103.46.
March 10, 2004: $440
Related: Amazon Keeps Spending, Sales Growing But Not Income - Reacting to Product Problems
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Life Long Science Education
We need much more outreach from universities. There are many reasons for the lack of scientific understanding in the general population, which allows for political manipulation of science related ideas. But making science accessible to the public is an extremely important countermeasure. There is far too little focus on doing this by universities in my opinion. I realize it is not a historical focus. But today it seem very much in line with the written missions many universities have (promoting education, understanding...) and the technology make net efforts possible, that were not reasonable previously. And the state of society today (including how long we now live, and how important science issues are) make it more important than ever that the public have access to engaging science resources.
I think most would also agree we don't want universities supporting closed science by supporting publication of science research in closed access journals. Some universities have taken a stand against this practice, which is good. But many universities have not.
My Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog tries to help engage people in science.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Arguing For Different Policies Doesn't Mean You Have to Change Behavior Before the Policies Are Adopted
Am I A Complete Hypocrite? Or an Opportunist?
This seems like a perfectly reasonable action to me. I think it would be hypocritical if you suggested others don't participate even though the program was ongoing. But there is a huge difference between arguing for a different policy and living with the existing policy.
This seems obvious to me though many don't seem to understand that Warren Buffett can argue a better policy for the country would raise his taxes. They tell him to pay more taxes if he wants. His argument is not having whoever wants to give the government more money should do so, he argues the country would be better off with a tax system that had higher tax rates for multi-millionare earners than those working at McDonald's.
Arguing for the government should have different policies doesn't require you to act as though it did to be consistent.
This can get less clear cut if you argue about the moral failings of those who act in x or y way. If you say those taking welfare are lazy scammers stealing from society or something, for example. Then you are claiming it isn't the government policy that you object to (or it isn't only that) but the character of those taking advantage of the policy. In a case where you accept charity when you disparage others for doing so then the argument for being a hypocrite would exist, I think.
Whether it is when I am complaining about liberals or Congressional ineptness it isn’t hard to find my libertarian political views on this website. So, when I was complaining to a buddy the other day about how ridiculous the Occupy Wall Street people are…he responded that I was a Hypocrite.
This seems obvious to me though many don't seem to understand that Warren Buffett can argue a better policy for the country would raise his taxes. They tell him to pay more taxes if he wants. His argument is not having whoever wants to give the government more money should do so, he argues the country would be better off with a tax system that had higher tax rates for multi-millionare earners than those working at McDonald's.
Arguing for the government should have different policies doesn't require you to act as though it did to be consistent.
This can get less clear cut if you argue about the moral failings of those who act in x or y way. If you say those taking welfare are lazy scammers stealing from society or something, for example. Then you are claiming it isn't the government policy that you object to (or it isn't only that) but the character of those taking advantage of the policy. In a case where you accept charity when you disparage others for doing so then the argument for being a hypocrite would exist, I think.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Acting Considerately
Comment on: More education needed in Dubai Metro’s Priority Seat
I have never been to Dubai but my guess is like everywhere else, there is a huge dose of inconsiderate behavior. There are some people that are rude and intentionally so (or at least know they consistently are selfish and inconsiderate and don't care to change). There are many more people that like to believe they are a nice person. If you call to their attention some action they can take to be considerate they will be considerate.
My guess is you don't have to demand anything just ask if someone will let you sit. Then some in the "I think of myself as considerate" group will let you sit.
For those in that group, my thought is: it is better to actually be proactively considerate. Considering others gives the impression (to me) that it is a proactive act. Inconsiderate is the absence of that proactive consideration of others. And not being rude after it is brought to your attention, is certainly better than continuing to be rude. But we can do better than that.
I have never been to Dubai but my guess is like everywhere else, there is a huge dose of inconsiderate behavior. There are some people that are rude and intentionally so (or at least know they consistently are selfish and inconsiderate and don't care to change). There are many more people that like to believe they are a nice person. If you call to their attention some action they can take to be considerate they will be considerate.
My guess is you don't have to demand anything just ask if someone will let you sit. Then some in the "I think of myself as considerate" group will let you sit.
For those in that group, my thought is: it is better to actually be proactively considerate. Considering others gives the impression (to me) that it is a proactive act. Inconsiderate is the absence of that proactive consideration of others. And not being rude after it is brought to your attention, is certainly better than continuing to be rude. But we can do better than that.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Google PageRank and MozRank of Some of My Sites
Pagerank is a value given to the links coming into a web page on a logarithmic scale. So a PR of 2 is 10 times greater than PR 1 and 100 less than PR 4. MozRank has been round a couple of years now and seems to be a decent addition to looking at PageRank. It is updated much more frequently and for some reason is using a scale of 8 instead of 10***, so a PR of 2 is 8 times greater than PR 1 and 100 less than PR 4. MozRank also shows the result to 2 decimal places, which is nice. A PageRank value of 5 could range all the way from 4.5 to 5.49 - those values are almost 100 times different in their magnitude. In the chart below I round MozRank to the nearest tenth of a point.
Now the visible PageRank is just a way of Google letting other people see the relative PageRanks of web pages. The real pagerank Google updates much more frequently. The real pagerank is what is used as a factor in search results. I also believe Google now includes penalties to visible pageranks that are not actually used in their search rankings. So they can show a visible indication that the site is not as highly ranked as it may be (this is most easily noticeable when pages have a reduction in pagerank with no real world explanation).
PageRank matter but is hardly a huge factor. It is much more important to have links from related pages than just high pagerank pages, for being ranked highly in Google search results. And the link text used in links to your pages is very important for how well you rank in search engines. However a link from a page with a PR of 7 would be much better than and a very similar page with a PR of 1. Pagerank "passed" to the linked to page is divided by the total number of links on the page. So if you had a link from a relavent PR 7 page with 10 links that would provide 5 times more "pagerank" than the same PR 7 with 50 links.
In my last post I said "Another thing I have noticed much more over the last few years is having PR for internal pages is much harder." What I have noticed in the last few months is many more internal pages seem to have decent page ranks (very high, above 4, is still fairly rare): lots more internal pages show ranks of 1,2,3 and 4 than I noticed in the last few years You might get the wrong impression from the table below as I picked out the somewhat rare internal pages with decent page ranks to track.
The displayed pagerank is mainly a fun measure, rather than a measure that can be relied on as an important measure. But I still find it fun to look at the pagerank values - except when they go down for my sites :-( Now you can take some solace if your MozRank goes up :-)
For those wondering if I take special Search Engine Optimization (SEO) actions to achieve these results, I don't really. I try to create good content and provide value to users. That is what I did long before I ever heard of SEO. I do include links to my other sites when I think it is worthwhile. My sites are almost all created out of my personal interests (or maybe all, to varying levels, a couple of sites are things that kind of interest me but are maybe more experiments then core interests to me). It isn't surprising they link together in various ways. Again long before I heard of SEO (and the term was even used) I wrote others with web sites on similar topics to share what I offered.
With the advent of blogs, I commented on blogs I read. I do make some effort to try and have sensible urls from an SEO perspective. And I make an additional effort to comment on blogs in order to "market" and SEO reasons. But I do so not by spaming blogs but with thoughtful comments. Those thoughts may be lame, but they are mine, based on the topic and meant to add to the conversation. I doubt I average more than 10 comments a week on blogs. It really is more about adding to the conversation than getting links that some computer reads. Also a few (very few) people reading the thoughtful comments will follow the link to my site and subscribe to RSS feeds, add links to my posts... I occasionally suggest links to blog carnival - probably less than 10 times a year. That is about it.
Check the current pagerank on your sites using our related site: Multiple Site PageRank checker.
* internal pages
** new url as of January 2011, old url forwarded, by Oct 2011 report the pagerank updated
- unranked
[blank] I don't know what the pagerank was, sometimes the site didn't exist yet.
*** Google doesn't say they use a scale of 10 for the logarithmic PageRank. It seems as good a guess and any and is easier to picture so I use that until we have some new evidence.
Related: Web Page Authority - 6 years Later Goolge Acts To Let Me Block Sites I don't want to see - PageRank Distribution - Google's Search Results - Should Factors Other Than User Value be Used
Now the visible PageRank is just a way of Google letting other people see the relative PageRanks of web pages. The real pagerank Google updates much more frequently. The real pagerank is what is used as a factor in search results. I also believe Google now includes penalties to visible pageranks that are not actually used in their search rankings. So they can show a visible indication that the site is not as highly ranked as it may be (this is most easily noticeable when pages have a reduction in pagerank with no real world explanation).
PageRank matter but is hardly a huge factor. It is much more important to have links from related pages than just high pagerank pages, for being ranked highly in Google search results. And the link text used in links to your pages is very important for how well you rank in search engines. However a link from a page with a PR of 7 would be much better than and a very similar page with a PR of 1. Pagerank "passed" to the linked to page is divided by the total number of links on the page. So if you had a link from a relavent PR 7 page with 10 links that would provide 5 times more "pagerank" than the same PR 7 with 50 links.
In my last post I said "Another thing I have noticed much more over the last few years is having PR for internal pages is much harder." What I have noticed in the last few months is many more internal pages seem to have decent page ranks (very high, above 4, is still fairly rare): lots more internal pages show ranks of 1,2,3 and 4 than I noticed in the last few years You might get the wrong impression from the table below as I picked out the somewhat rare internal pages with decent page ranks to track.
The displayed pagerank is mainly a fun measure, rather than a measure that can be relied on as an important measure. But I still find it fun to look at the pagerank values - except when they go down for my sites :-( Now you can take some solace if your MozRank goes up :-)
For those wondering if I take special Search Engine Optimization (SEO) actions to achieve these results, I don't really. I try to create good content and provide value to users. That is what I did long before I ever heard of SEO. I do include links to my other sites when I think it is worthwhile. My sites are almost all created out of my personal interests (or maybe all, to varying levels, a couple of sites are things that kind of interest me but are maybe more experiments then core interests to me). It isn't surprising they link together in various ways. Again long before I heard of SEO (and the term was even used) I wrote others with web sites on similar topics to share what I offered.
With the advent of blogs, I commented on blogs I read. I do make some effort to try and have sensible urls from an SEO perspective. And I make an additional effort to comment on blogs in order to "market" and SEO reasons. But I do so not by spaming blogs but with thoughtful comments. Those thoughts may be lame, but they are mine, based on the topic and meant to add to the conversation. I doubt I average more than 10 comments a week on blogs. It really is more about adding to the conversation than getting links that some computer reads. Also a few (very few) people reading the thoughtful comments will follow the link to my site and subscribe to RSS feeds, add links to my posts... I occasionally suggest links to blog carnival - probably less than 10 times a year. That is about it.
Check the current pagerank on your sites using our related site: Multiple Site PageRank checker.
* internal pages
** new url as of January 2011, old url forwarded, by Oct 2011 report the pagerank updated
- unranked
[blank] I don't know what the pagerank was, sometimes the site didn't exist yet.
*** Google doesn't say they use a scale of 10 for the logarithmic PageRank. It seems as good a guess and any and is easier to picture so I use that until we have some new evidence.
Related: Web Page Authority - 6 years Later Goolge Acts To Let Me Block Sites I don't want to see - PageRank Distribution - Google's Search Results - Should Factors Other Than User Value be Used
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Google Analytics is Now Real Time
Google analytics is a great easy to use tool to track the use of your web site. One missing feature was real time data. When I was getting indications of increases in traffic it was sometimes hard to pin down what was going on. Today Google added real time support. This will be greatly appreciated when I want to obsess over some web details in real time.
Whats happening on your site right now
You’ll find the Real-Time reports only in the new version of Google Analytics. If you’re not already using the new version, you can start by clicking the “New Version” link in the top right of Google Analytics. Real-Time reports are in the Dashboards tab (though they will move to the Home tab in the updated interface next week) . You will have access to Real-Time reports if you are an Administrator on your Analytics account, or if you have access to a profile without profile filters. Real-Time does not support profile filters.
We just turned the reports on for a number of you, and over the coming weeks, everyone will have access to Real-Time. If you can’t wait, sign up for early access here: https://services.google.com/fb/forms/realtimeanalytics/. We’d love to hear about how you are using (or planning to use) Real-Time, so please share in the comments.
Unfortunately the new interface has a horrible navigation scheme if you have lots of sites. It is just horrible. It prevented me from using the new site until now. I doubt I can put up with it for long.
Related: Looking at the Google PageRank of Some of My Sites - 6 years Later Goolge Acts To Let Me Block Sites I don't want to see - Search Share Data, Checking the ACSI
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Using Sweets and Science to Interest Boys in Cooking
Deserts can also be a good attraction to getting boys interested in cooking: I remember as a kid myself. I don't know how it happened, I wouldn't be surprised if my parents calculated to figure out what would tempt me. My mom made great chocolate mouse when we had special guests. I loved it. At some point I learned how to cook it.
Also if they are interested in science, like I am, cooking actually has very interesting chemistry going on. Which I never knew as a kid. Showing them this can be fun. I would have taken to cooking more if this was thrown in, I think:
Response to: How To Get Your Boy Interested in Cooking
Related: The Man Who Unboiled an Egg - Science Fair Project on Bacterial Growth on Packaged Salads
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Moral Consequences of Your Decisions
In response to: Being Wealthy Is Not Ungodly
When you have the power to alleviate suffering and chose not to do so is that acting with Christen charity? I don't think it is so easy to dismiss the contrast of a duty to your fellow man and your choice to live lavishly. Those choices should be taken with care and consideration. I strongly feel we in the USA are far to uncaring about the suffering of our fellow man. It is far too easy to isolate yourself and pretend you can't do anything, or that it isn't your concern.
Those are perfectly valid choices. But, I think it is much more difficult to say those are perfectly valid choice for a Christian to make. Christianity has great variation and there certainly are those that do not believe there is anything wrong with essentially not caring about human suffering you could address if you chose to. To me that is stretching the meaning of Christianity quite a bit but that is certainly people's right.
It is no fun to think that I could save people's lives if I just lived a simple life and didn't indulge. But that is the actual fact. You can chose to save people's lives or chose to live as we do in the USA, very lavishly. I make that choice myself. I give to charity but I could give much more if I just chose to do so. I just don't. That is a selfish choice that as a person I am entitled to make. But it is fraught with moral consequences.
In the USA we tend to want to avoid the stark consequences our actions have. When you are rich (and at least 60% of the USA is, probably much more, but I'll be generous - yes those in the USA don't feel that way, but that is mainly a sign of how much they believe the world owes them) you have the ability to help. Which is great, it is nice to have what you need and the ability to splurge on yourself or help others. But it also means you have to accept the moral consequences of your decisions. And it isn't some simple game. People die because of your decision. People suffer greatly because you chose not to help.
It is your right to make that decision. It is not your right to do so without accepting the moral consequences of the decision. And since I understand Christianity a bit better than other religions I know there is plenty of reason to question whether neglecting others to indulge yourself is acting as a Christian should. Christianity expects good acts, not just the avoidance of bad acts. Therefore, choosing to bypass the opportunity to help is not free from consequences. And morally, outside the Christen perspective, I don't see how you can avoid the consequences of your decisions. You have the right to chose. And your actions will show what you value (helping people in need, or say a new HDTV). You may want to pretend you are not deciding but the consequence of your being rich enough to decide is you are responsible for the choice you make.
Related: They Will Know We are Christians By Our Love - Super Spoiled Brats - Giving More Than Money to Charity - You Can Help Reduce Extreme Poverty - High School Team Project to Provide Clean Water - Appropriate Technology - Financial Thanksgiving
Thursday, September 08, 2011
How About Only Enforcing Copyright in Your Country if the Owner Allows Your Citizens Access
I have seen many title of articles over the last few months talking about how American politicians forced foreign countries to serve the interest of those giving large amounts of cash to the American politicians. Now I honestly haven't read the articles or the evidence presented in the wikileaks releases (supposedly showing the tactics used to push the interest of those paying politicians large amounts of cash).
The extent to which the policies of the USA were naked power plays to serve the interests of large donors surprises me a bit, but it is consistent with the large amount of such dealing for those paying USA politicians large amounts of money. It is fairly amazing how readily other countries sold out their citizens. But then again it isn't hard to imagine the USA offered deals (including not carry out threats) to get countries to go along with the interests of those giving USA politicians large amounts of cash.
In any event the release of the selling out of citizens is a great opportunity for some principled politicians to appeal to voters by saying they will no longer be the lapdogs of the lobbyists the USA government told them to follow. Right now many of the companies that used the USA government to pressure foreign governments into crazy policies even as favors to large USA political donors even when those donors refuse to allow those countries citizens to buy the products.
I suggest saying "our country will no longer enforce copyrights if the foreign country company refuses to allow your citizens to buy the product." For example, I can't watch BBC or USA network TV or use Netflix or buy the Kindle or... in many countries. If you want me to pass laws enforcing your copyrights then you allow my citizens to buy the products in questions. Some details would have to be worked out, my initial thoughts are any organization with sales or expenses over $1 billion must comply. And they may not charge more than double the price they charge others.
And that we don't intent to tolerate lawyer gimmicks like claiming some subsidiary in the Bahamas really owns... and therefore we are don't have to comply. If you play such games and we catch you, you forfeit all copyright claims in our country for that material. Negotiation can take place on the precise details. Until that time we do not agree to restrict our citizens access to material you have copyrighted in your country and refuse to allow my citizens to buy.
It seems like it has been long enough for companies to either start allowing my country to buy your products or quit telling me that I need to enforce your laws against my citizens. I realize the American government has pushed the policies of their big political donors into many international trade agreements. I am suggesting countries rebel from these policies that are treating their citizens as unimportant. We are willing to enforce some copyright rules as long as our citizens have a chance to buy the items. If not, once you do we will.
Amazon won't sell the kindle to many countries. Amazon will let you individually look at the status of every single country. Amazon seems at least somewhat interested in treating a few more countries as worthy of dealing with than many companies do. Still they don't allow those in China to buy it - isn't it made in China? You are good enough to make it but no we won't allow you to use it. Yes, I bet the claim is that those ip lawyers, and the like, refuse to allow Amazon to treat those that make the device with respect. I am tired of that thinking. My guess is Amazon wants to sell them. My guess is the same people paying the USA politicians to twist the arm of foreign governments are not allowing the sale in some way.
It is not ok, to treat most of the world as unworthy and as thieves. Allow them to buy the items or don't expect us to attack our citizens for you. In the information age if you citizens are denied the right to information your country will suffer.
It isn't ok to let those that pay USA politicians well harm your citizens. Now when those politicians just harm the USA that is their business, and the business of those that chose to elect them.
I'm sure many companies will say it is too hard for us to serve your citizens. Fine, then they can consume those goods any way they want. No I am not going to harm my citizens while you ignore them just because you think sometime maybe you will get around to caring enough about them. When you care to make them customers we will enforce reasonable copyright laws, until them the material is in affect open access. You can fix that buy making them customers. My problem, as leader of my country, is not how you make this work for your company, it is serving the citizens of my country. I'm willing to negotiate. I am not willing for you to pay your politicians to have them force us to bully our citizens.
The next thing that will be needed is for countries that have some leaders not so beholden to those paying them large amounts of money to create harmful copyright rules for society put some balance back into copyright rules. I'm sure there are plenty of people that can improve the ridiculously silly system we have now, but Lawrence Lessig would be a good person to talk to.
Then those countries can frame a sensible international treaty that benefits society not just a few people that pay politicians well. Hopefully you can lead the world, including the USA, to a better future.
Related: Copywrong - Deadly disease #9, A broken intellectual property system - What is Wrong with Copyright Taking Public Good for Private Special Interests - Lessig Video: Information Revolution - Banks Hoping they Paid Politicians Enough to Protect Billions in Excessive Fees
The extent to which the policies of the USA were naked power plays to serve the interests of large donors surprises me a bit, but it is consistent with the large amount of such dealing for those paying USA politicians large amounts of money. It is fairly amazing how readily other countries sold out their citizens. But then again it isn't hard to imagine the USA offered deals (including not carry out threats) to get countries to go along with the interests of those giving USA politicians large amounts of cash.
In any event the release of the selling out of citizens is a great opportunity for some principled politicians to appeal to voters by saying they will no longer be the lapdogs of the lobbyists the USA government told them to follow. Right now many of the companies that used the USA government to pressure foreign governments into crazy policies even as favors to large USA political donors even when those donors refuse to allow those countries citizens to buy the products.
I suggest saying "our country will no longer enforce copyrights if the foreign country company refuses to allow your citizens to buy the product." For example, I can't watch BBC or USA network TV or use Netflix or buy the Kindle or... in many countries. If you want me to pass laws enforcing your copyrights then you allow my citizens to buy the products in questions. Some details would have to be worked out, my initial thoughts are any organization with sales or expenses over $1 billion must comply. And they may not charge more than double the price they charge others.
And that we don't intent to tolerate lawyer gimmicks like claiming some subsidiary in the Bahamas really owns... and therefore we are don't have to comply. If you play such games and we catch you, you forfeit all copyright claims in our country for that material. Negotiation can take place on the precise details. Until that time we do not agree to restrict our citizens access to material you have copyrighted in your country and refuse to allow my citizens to buy.
It seems like it has been long enough for companies to either start allowing my country to buy your products or quit telling me that I need to enforce your laws against my citizens. I realize the American government has pushed the policies of their big political donors into many international trade agreements. I am suggesting countries rebel from these policies that are treating their citizens as unimportant. We are willing to enforce some copyright rules as long as our citizens have a chance to buy the items. If not, once you do we will.
Amazon won't sell the kindle to many countries. Amazon will let you individually look at the status of every single country. Amazon seems at least somewhat interested in treating a few more countries as worthy of dealing with than many companies do. Still they don't allow those in China to buy it - isn't it made in China? You are good enough to make it but no we won't allow you to use it. Yes, I bet the claim is that those ip lawyers, and the like, refuse to allow Amazon to treat those that make the device with respect. I am tired of that thinking. My guess is Amazon wants to sell them. My guess is the same people paying the USA politicians to twist the arm of foreign governments are not allowing the sale in some way.
It is not ok, to treat most of the world as unworthy and as thieves. Allow them to buy the items or don't expect us to attack our citizens for you. In the information age if you citizens are denied the right to information your country will suffer.
It isn't ok to let those that pay USA politicians well harm your citizens. Now when those politicians just harm the USA that is their business, and the business of those that chose to elect them.
I'm sure many companies will say it is too hard for us to serve your citizens. Fine, then they can consume those goods any way they want. No I am not going to harm my citizens while you ignore them just because you think sometime maybe you will get around to caring enough about them. When you care to make them customers we will enforce reasonable copyright laws, until them the material is in affect open access. You can fix that buy making them customers. My problem, as leader of my country, is not how you make this work for your company, it is serving the citizens of my country. I'm willing to negotiate. I am not willing for you to pay your politicians to have them force us to bully our citizens.
The next thing that will be needed is for countries that have some leaders not so beholden to those paying them large amounts of money to create harmful copyright rules for society put some balance back into copyright rules. I'm sure there are plenty of people that can improve the ridiculously silly system we have now, but Lawrence Lessig would be a good person to talk to.
Then those countries can frame a sensible international treaty that benefits society not just a few people that pay politicians well. Hopefully you can lead the world, including the USA, to a better future.
Related: Copywrong - Deadly disease #9, A broken intellectual property system - What is Wrong with Copyright Taking Public Good for Private Special Interests - Lessig Video: Information Revolution - Banks Hoping they Paid Politicians Enough to Protect Billions in Excessive Fees
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans
I am disheartened by how our society is being shaped in ways that I don't think most people agree with. The problem is the system that shapes society is not some wonderful system that collects and synthesizes the wants, desires, hope, dreams and hard work of individuals to create an ideal system for peace and prosperity of all mankind. Too bad. But that has never been the case. However, the level to which society is being malformed today by special interests manipulating things for their favor at the expense of society is disheartening.
One of those areas is the legal system that inhibits many positive things for society and encourages many negative things. It is within our power to shape society. But it is not within our desire.
Society is being shaped for us while we are not paying attention.
Here is one small example, of how we have somehow reached a place where honestly providing your opinion of an employee is dangerous to you (this harms: employees [not being able to get references that will speak], companies [not being able to get references on potential hires], society [the inefficiency added to the market is a negative cost with no benefit - just a reduction in everyone's standard of living] and the person not allowed to give an honest reference [not being able to be honest, help those that helped them...]):
What Employers Can Say About You When Giving References
Don't you think the huge negative externalities of limiting honest discussion of people's strengths and weaknesses is a sign of the sickness of the legal system? The reason we have a legal system to to help society function. Unfortunately it often does the opposite and makes society avoid activity that is good for society. There are good reasons for things like defamation suits when someone is behaving egregiously. When we force people to self sensor in order to avoid the hugely overreaching legal system that does great damage to our society.
People seem to think bad societal repercussions are inevitable. They are not. If we didn't roll over for run away legal activism we wouldn't have to put up with it. Not being able to be honest is not a good outcome for society. And, in fact, is against the moral code most people would subscribe too. Unfortunately we more an more are concerned not with what is moral, right or good but what is a bother and what pain the legal system will inflict on us for being honest.
Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans.
We need the rule of law. The problem I see is that today the way that is being done (and not done) is harmful to our society. It is not that we need to eliminate the legal system. We need to fix it so it works to make society better and not so often to do damage to society instead.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. - Beautiful Boy, John Lennon, 1980
Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans." to Allen Saunders, 1957
Related: Bikinis For Liberty - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness - Copywrong - Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Bad Behavior - CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers
One of those areas is the legal system that inhibits many positive things for society and encourages many negative things. It is within our power to shape society. But it is not within our desire.
Society is being shaped for us while we are not paying attention.
Here is one small example, of how we have somehow reached a place where honestly providing your opinion of an employee is dangerous to you (this harms: employees [not being able to get references that will speak], companies [not being able to get references on potential hires], society [the inefficiency added to the market is a negative cost with no benefit - just a reduction in everyone's standard of living] and the person not allowed to give an honest reference [not being able to be honest, help those that helped them...]):
What Employers Can Say About You When Giving References
This is why many employers have neutral reference policies, where they only give out dates of employment and job title. This is obviously safe information to give. I would caution employers who have neutral reference policies to apply them evenly. If you give positive or negative references to some employees, you could get socked with a discrimination claim.
Don't you think the huge negative externalities of limiting honest discussion of people's strengths and weaknesses is a sign of the sickness of the legal system? The reason we have a legal system to to help society function. Unfortunately it often does the opposite and makes society avoid activity that is good for society. There are good reasons for things like defamation suits when someone is behaving egregiously. When we force people to self sensor in order to avoid the hugely overreaching legal system that does great damage to our society.
People seem to think bad societal repercussions are inevitable. They are not. If we didn't roll over for run away legal activism we wouldn't have to put up with it. Not being able to be honest is not a good outcome for society. And, in fact, is against the moral code most people would subscribe too. Unfortunately we more an more are concerned not with what is moral, right or good but what is a bother and what pain the legal system will inflict on us for being honest.
Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans.
We need the rule of law. The problem I see is that today the way that is being done (and not done) is harmful to our society. It is not that we need to eliminate the legal system. We need to fix it so it works to make society better and not so often to do damage to society instead.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. - Beautiful Boy, John Lennon, 1980
Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans." to Allen Saunders, 1957
Related: Bikinis For Liberty - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness - Copywrong - Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Bad Behavior - CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Saving for Retirement Globally
Comment posted to: Does the idea of planning for retirement vary across the globe?
Huge numbers of people in the in the USA and I believe in England too, have done a horrible job of saving for retirement. Many in China save over 20% of their income. Why shouldn't they be confident. Also comparing to your parents in China is a pretty easy comparison to beat. I am still learning about Malaysia (I would imagine they save well - but it is possible they are just optimistic :-)
Saving for retirement everywhere is pretty basic. You have to save 8-12% of your income to have a decent shot at a good retirement. And in exceptional circumstances you need something different. I write about investing and retirement on one of my blogs: Retiring Overseas is an Appealing Option for Some Retirees, In the USA 43% Have Less Than $10,000 in Retirement Savings, Delaying Retirement – Working Longer.
Huge numbers of people in the in the USA and I believe in England too, have done a horrible job of saving for retirement. Many in China save over 20% of their income. Why shouldn't they be confident. Also comparing to your parents in China is a pretty easy comparison to beat. I am still learning about Malaysia (I would imagine they save well - but it is possible they are just optimistic :-)
Saving for retirement everywhere is pretty basic. You have to save 8-12% of your income to have a decent shot at a good retirement. And in exceptional circumstances you need something different. I write about investing and retirement on one of my blogs: Retiring Overseas is an Appealing Option for Some Retirees, In the USA 43% Have Less Than $10,000 in Retirement Savings, Delaying Retirement – Working Longer.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Agile Software Development and Customer Delight
Agile is about customer delight
Jeff Patton might be right. I would say though, my belief is it makes customer delight more likely. Having a system of development that is more responsive is more likely to do so. In the agile context it would have a lot to do with the product manager - but I think the agile mindset would make it more likely the product manager could prioritize tasks to delight the customer (for various reasons - such as not having to spend so much time fighting over specs decided 9 months ago, having a mindset focused on what is most important now [rather than following what we promised somebody 6 months ago])... Agile might not directly lead to delight, but it sets a stage where that is much more likely - not only because of system improvements but changes in what people spend focus on.
Related: Curious Cat Management blog posts on customer focus - Involve IT Staff in Business Process Improvement
If @jeffpatton's point is to emphasize the need to consider the customer more fully in Agile projects, then I am in total agreement. But one thing is for sure, Agile methods are much more directed at Customer Delight than many of the other methods available today
Jeff Patton might be right. I would say though, my belief is it makes customer delight more likely. Having a system of development that is more responsive is more likely to do so. In the agile context it would have a lot to do with the product manager - but I think the agile mindset would make it more likely the product manager could prioritize tasks to delight the customer (for various reasons - such as not having to spend so much time fighting over specs decided 9 months ago, having a mindset focused on what is most important now [rather than following what we promised somebody 6 months ago])... Agile might not directly lead to delight, but it sets a stage where that is much more likely - not only because of system improvements but changes in what people spend focus on.
Related: Curious Cat Management blog posts on customer focus - Involve IT Staff in Business Process Improvement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)