Disqus - Latest Comments for Adam Lasnik

Re: Facebook to supplant email?

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:04:33 -0000

I really do love Facebook and admittedly log in at least once a day, but really don't get why people find its messaging system so intriguing or useful.

Ways I feel Gmail beats the pants off of Facebook for messaging:

1) Search! ('nuff said)

2) Speed (Gmail seems to load faster)

3) Clarity (rich text / attachments)

4) Flexibility (cc, bcc, quick groups, etc.)

5) Permanence. I expect I'll have Gmail for a long time. Facebook, though I hope and expect it to be around for ages... well, I'm not as sure.

6) Openness. What if someone else creates the next best thing in e-mail? I can POP my mail out of Gmail! Sure, it'll take a long time, but it's possible. What if someone creates a better social network than Facebook? I sure don't see how I can take my messages with me! :(

7) Organization. I can make particularly funny, memorable, or important threads with just a click or two on Gmail. I can't annotate my Facebook messages at all... with anything!

* * *

Now with that said, a few ways that Facebook messaging beats Gmail'ing:

1) Mails are attached to a friend, not an address. If my friend changes e-mail addresses, Gmail won't necessarily know it's the same person. But Facebook does. The transition is seamless.

2) Er... I can't think of anything else! All these reasons:

- Permanence
- Spam Blocking
- Space Savings
- It’s E-mail (plus)
- It’s Also The Phone Book

...just seem nonsensical to me. Permanence? Spam blocking (already near-perfect in Gmail). Space savings? Uh... why? It's E-mail (plus)? What is this, marketing 101? :P It's also The Phone Book? Gmail autocomplete is chopped liver? :P

The usual disclaimer applies: I work for Google, but am not associated with Gmail except as a happy user.

Re: The space between Twitter and FriendFeed (Scripting News)

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:46:44 -0000

I respectfully disagree. I think the only reason why Twitter is more popular is that, well, it was first. Network effect. People want to be where their friends are, where more action is. In many ways, that's Twitter. If you swapped only one thing -- the number of active users on the services -- I could almost guarantee you that FriendFeed would take off like gangbusters and Twitter would falter.

In other words, I don't think it's about simplicity at all. I've invited non-techie/non-geeky friends to both Twitter and Friendfeed, and I haven't heard once "Oh, but Friendfeed is confusing! Too many options!" Nope. If anything, Twitter's limitations IMHO tend to be *more* frustrating and confusing than Friendfeed's.

Re: Stuck in Google Search and Advertising Hell

Adam Lasnik — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:24:29 -0000

Steven, I typically enjoy reading your articles here and your comments on Friendfeed, but your (IMHO very wrong) assertions here deeply disappoint me :(.

Selecting just a few...

> there will be no initiative to evolve any part of their systems
...
> we have seen no real improvement is the search field

I hope you'll forgive my bluntness here, but speaking as someone who has spent two years on Google's Search Quality team, I can't think of a one of us that's motivated by Google's marketshare. Whether Google's share becomes 3% or 93% or stays something in between, I guarantee you that my colleagues and I will continue to bust our posteriors on improving search quality. You may not see whiz bang UI changes, and I respect that you and some others may yearn for a new "revolutionary" search UI, but what's under the hood is constantly evolving, constantly improving (and in more languages and countries than you can count on many hands).

And while I certainly can't speak even semi-officially for the folks in AdSense, I think it's absolutely nuts that anyone would think that team doesn't have enormous incentive to improve contextual search. As greater percentages of visitors on web sites with AdSense ads become purchasers of products in those ads, advertisers become happier with Google. The happier advertisers become, the more money they are apt to spend on AdWords. There's not just a slight correlation here, there's a darn humungous correlation (and incentive!)

Re: Thanks Google Now I’m Going To Hell

Adam Lasnik — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:25:50 -0000

Your post made me smile! And since you like tearing tabs off and having separate "apps" via Chrome, one thing I thought I'd point out (if you haven't noticed) is that Chrome remembers the exact shape of the window, so you can create a FF app (beta.friendfeed.com/yourusername), then resize it exactly how you want it, put it where you want it on your screen, and Chrome will remember that. I've done this with Calendar, Friendfeed, and other sites.

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:20:50 -0000

Sorry, Seth, I have to disagree with you here.

Just because someone is a successful businessman in one sector (in Zell's case, real estate), doesn't necessarily mean any of the following:
- He's smart
- He's honest
- He can speak intelligently on all business issues
- He can make good business decisions in other sectors

That's like saying, hey, this guy is a superb swimmer. Let's have him on our baseball team! Or let's have him be a baseball commentator on TV. Oops. ("But hey, he's an exceptional award-winning athlete... how could he be wrong about another sport?!")

Re: Hey Google — stop linking to us

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:23:33 -0000

Oh, and a related point:
RIAA. MPAA.

Organizations comprised of multi-billion-dollar and (at least formerly) successful businesses. Current (much deserved) verdict?: Morons.

Re: Twitter, Ustream — how much is too much?

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:44:31 -0000

You know, I think we have reached -- or are rapidly reaching -- the limits to what "real time" or merely massively-increased information can offer us as a society.

Ask yourself:
- Does the additional information help me be more productive?
- Does it make me happier?
- Does it make me a better person?

If the answer to all three is NO, then... well, that says something, doesn't it?

I'm trying out Twitter. But so far, I've had to answer NO to all three questions above about it. More information, quicker information does not inherently = better lives. And for the love of dog, I have no interest in watching videos of narcissists. Justincam? Have these folks (Justin and the folks following him) such empty lives?

If anything, I ludditingly long for the days in which we "consumed" less and thought more. Nowadays -- perhaps in the blogosphere in particular -- so much sound and fury, signifying little.

Re: Warner streams entire catalog of music for free on imeem

Adam Lasnik — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:12:38 -0000

Dang, this is incredibly exciting... but particularly if other labels follow suit.

I've been wanting to showcase songs -- even snippets of songs -- on my own blog for years. Rhapsody and Napster have offered limited free-song-plays, but only behind ridiculously cumbersome registrations, pop-up windows, etc. In fact, I bemoaned this situation (and presented an alternative) in this blog entry:
http://www.bladam.com/main/entry/fair-use-mashups/

It's shocking to me how long it's taking for labels to get the fact that... letting the world mix and match your content and passionately showcase it is going to result in MORE money -- via advertising, CD sales, download sales, merchandise, etc.

Can't wait 'til the clue finally sinks in more broadly. And hey, thanks for highlighting this new situation with imeem. I'll definitely re-check that site out :)

Re: Boom! 3G iPhone. One more thing: $199

Adam Lasnik — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:10:21 -0000

I wouldn't pay $99 if it meant being tied to AT&T for 2 years. Incompetent bunch o' price gougers...

Re: louisgray.com: FriendFeed and Enjit: Open Up the Firehose to the Entire Social Web

Adam Lasnik — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:28:04 -0000

I'm going to be the curmudgeon again. More & faster is not necessarily better. I think from a technical perspective this option is pretty neato, but from a philosophical, social, and cultural perspective, it seems merely an additional push towards the more-speed-less-substance end of the spectrum.

Do we need this firehose?
Does it help us make us *usefully* more informed?
Does it improve our lives?

Or would that time better be spent reading a book, writing a novel (or even a real blog post), or even just walking out in a field and putting together ideas and inspirations and so on?

I know, I know. Sometimes I'm such a luddite. But I can't help but be uncomfortable with the pace of frantic change coupled with the increase in, well, franticness.

Re: louisgray.com: FriendFeed and Enjit: Open Up the Firehose to the Entire Social Web

Adam Lasnik — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:46:07 -0000

Jesse, I strongly take issue with your implied connection between opposing firehoseness and opposition to building and nurturing relationships. I just feel strongly that the latter should involve a greater emphasis on deep and measured conversations and commentary which, IMHO, cannot possibly be either communicated in 140 characters nor thoughtfully digested when it's being firehosed at you. It's the difference, IMHO, between real friends and -- to quote Fight Club -- "single serving friends." I'm all for online networking and connections , and in fact have been active in online communities (even helping create them) for over two decades (yes, before there was a public internet). I just feel there's currently a disconcertingly large proportion of efforts focusing on quantity over quality, speed over depth.

Re: Allez Cuisine!

Adam Lasnik — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:30:31 -0000

Holy crab! Undeniably food porn. YUM!

Re: Google Reader’s list view just might reveal secret of The Matrix

Adam Lasnik — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:15:16 -0000

As a Googler (but not one who works on Reader), I think it's awesome that you're enjoying Reader and that you've discovered the List view. I'm wondering, though, if you're also aware of the very cool keyboard shortcuts. They might save your fingers some wear and tear, too :-)

Re: Google Reader’s list view just might reveal secret of The Matrix

Adam Lasnik — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:06:18 -0000

Yes! :)

Re: Finally, Disqus gets native FriendFeed support

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:09:54 -0000

I keep flirting with moving my blog's comments over to Disqus or IntenseDebate, but there's one core thing that causes me to abandon the idea: the fact that for seemingly any blog other than Wordpress, there's no way to include the comments in a way that they're indexable in search engines. I get a bunch of (interested/interesting) traffic to my blog currently from my indexed comments, and I'd really hate to give that up :(.

Re: Finally Here!

Adam Lasnik — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:11:42 -0000

Hey Felicia,

Cool video. I was particularly amused at your mention of Prodigy; I helped establish the Teen board on that service (and I remember how sad I was when Prodigy started charging 25 cents *per e-mail*!)

Anyway, congrats on all your successes. Hope to hear more of you singing online!

Re: Airlines pilots handing out Captain Donut cards on flights? - Tom Stocky's blog

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:50:29 -0000

An AOL address? I knew United was in trouble, but...

Re: Happy Election Day!

Adam Lasnik — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:06:22 -0000

Neato, but something tells me there's no uniqueness constraint here, eh? :P

And on an unrelated note: I've been looking for help documentation or a feedback link for bit.ly but sadly to no avail. For example, two of my recent bit.ly'd pages have no title showing for them in my bit.ly account page, making it pretty hard to tell what's what (without clicking on "info"). Seems like a bug, but -- other than via this comment -- I've been unsure how to report it :-(

Re: Happy Election Day!

Adam Lasnik — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:07:16 -0000

Ah, thanks! I much appreciate the reply, and of course, your very cool service. :)

Re: bit.ly blog - Shorten URLs with bit.ly Inside Gmail Last night,...

Adam Lasnik — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:21:24 -0000

I think this is really neat! What would make it even better would be a small extra text field allowing us to customize the URL. I find this feature to be very useful (and important) for me, because it helps me remember frequently-typed URLs.

Thanks for taking this into consideration for v2 of this handy Gmail gadget :)

Re: 2007/05/10/gmail-users-are-younger-richer-good-in-bed/

Adam Lasnik — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:35:52 -0000

I think this causal relationship is amazing and wonderful!

It's all very clear to me:
Use Gmail, and you'll become younger, richer, and have a better love life.

Okay, maybe not the younger part, but the rest is clearly true: since starting to use Gmail, my net worth has increased and my love life has improved! QED.

Re: Wordpress.com’ RSS feeds suck

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:15:51 -0000

Robert,

IMHO, you're making a mountain out of a molehill with this. Seems you like you have two very easy and effective solutions here:

1) Ditch RSS and go with Atom. Seriously. I can't think of a single major newsreader that can't handle Atom without blinking.

AND/OR

2) Go with Feedburner. I LOVE this service. Great tracking, easy to set up, and shows human readable xml feeds.

Frankly, I'd avoid going with a Wordpress.com blog for the same reason I think a zillion others have noted in the past: why tie you blog's stability, brand, and hamper your movability to a third party? Heck, even Feedburner lets you use your own domain URL (albeit for a small extra fee).

Seriously, why would anyone with technical prowess want to go with somename.3rdpartysite.com when they can have somename.com or .net? It just doesn't make any sense to me. What possible value could you be deriving from a hosted Wordpress solution?

And no, I'm not trying to pick on Matt here. I've not used WordPress, but I respect the tool and the people behind it... and I know it's a really fine blogging app. I just don't get the hosted thing in your context.

Re: Wordpress.com’ RSS feeds suck

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:35:44 -0000

Understood, Robert, but if I understood you correctly, you noted that your Atom feed looks / works just fine. Why not just do a redirect and then *voila*? Unless (and I admit this could be a consideration) you're worried that there'd be problems you hadn't caught with the Atom feed, too.

So, yeah, I suppose that I was a bit too brusque to simply suggest that this wasn't a problem at all... but I stand by my assertion that it's likely to be easily solvable.

(and for the record... I use NewzCrawler, and I never noticed any problems at all with your WordPress feed)

Re: Wordpress.com’ RSS feeds suck

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:38:54 -0000

> Also, a service should allow a user to have their own
> domain [or subdomain like blog(s).domainName.TLD], as
> well as an exit path that preserves their look and
> all archived posts if they should wish to move to
> another service or self-hoting.

1) Feedburner lets you (for a small fee) use yourdomain.com/feed or whatever (while still taking advantage of their cool services).

2) Even on free Feedburner accounts, if you decide to ditch FB, they'll kindly redirect accesses to your FB URL to whatever URL on your own server you'd like for 30 days (likely enough time for feedreaders to note the 301 redirect and react accordingly).

Note that I am not affiliated with FB in any way except as a happy user.

Oh, and Robert... it's certainly possible that there's SOME feed reader out there that can't handle Atom 0.3, just like there are still some browsers out there that can't handle proper CSS (and lots of other stuff), e.g., Netscape 4. I don't know about you, but I gave up on those folks ages ago.

Re: More disruption from Google: it’s patenting attention data display

Adam Lasnik — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:05:00 -0000

You want to know what the first step is, Robert? Hire a smart business/geek/PR/marketing person to help translate the Godawful text on attentiontrust.org and to create a coherent, non-buzzword'y voice for this quest. When I first saw the site, I could have sworn I was looking at something from The Onion. "Assert your right to YOU!"?! "Attention owners"? This organization has a fricking *board of directors*? And worse yet, the people on other sites gleefully trying to explain the concepts make things even worse. I don't have those links handy at the moment, but I remember asking myself "Are these people writing in English? And if so, are they saying anything even moderately comprehensible to normal humans?"

And mind you, I'm a geek. If this stuff makes me go "HUH?!" then I can't imagine how ANY non-geek (read: the billions of other people on the planet) would understand, much less care about these "attention" issues.

And on a related gripe... Ken, I respectfully disagree with your rant:

"My attention-paying habits are unique to me and I don’t give others permission to use them"

First, you're not as unique as you think you are. I'd be willing to bet that your clickstream is really really similar to a few thousand other people. You're part of a lot of groups, subgroups. You're only an individual in the philosophical sense ;)

And yes, for the most part, you do give others permission to use them. Don't like Google keeping track of what you visit and such? Don't install the Google toolbar or use Gmail. Don't want Microsoft to build a profile on you? Stop using Hotmail and other related services.

* * *

With that said, I *think* I may see some nuggets of goodness in the whole attention.xml thing. It indeed would be nice to not have information on where I click, what pages I visit, and what I buy to be SPLIT amongst a lot of big players; it'd be better to have it aggregated into one big bundle that I can consciously share when I want, and to whom I want.

But that's not a RIGHT. That's a preference. I have the right not to use services by Microsoft, Y!, Google, Fred Inc., whatever. I don't have a right (or at least a legal or philosophical one, IMHO) to complain when I don't like what information is gleaned from my actions with players on the Web when I had a full opportunity to read and approve their terms of service.

* * *

Whew. I feel much better now :)

Re: #9: the Duke conspiracy

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:16:52 -0000

Right on the money, so to speak, Robert!

I'm convinced that 10% of one's MBA is useful for the learning, and 90% is useful for the networking ;).

Because, let's face it, unless you went through a Wharton or Harvard MBA program, nowadays business experience is worth a lot more on a resume than an MBA. In general, it's all about the name... and about the relationships made when at a "good" school.

Take me, for an example :). I did my undergrad at Northwestern, my grad school (JD/MBA) at Indiana University. When I mention IU, most people nod politely without much excitement, because it's not a "prestige" school... even though I was VERY impressed with my professors, my fellow students, the gorgeous campus, and the vast resources at this state school.

On the other hand, when I mention Northwestern, people's eyes light up... and I hear "WOW!"

With that aside, though, regardless of a school's rep, the networking thing remains uber-important. I know that -- despite the silliness in a way -- I'm more apt to respond positively to a fellow NU or IU alum's request for career advice and such :)

Re: People don’t unsubscribe from RSS feeds, I’ve found

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:46:09 -0000

But will you still come visit us riff-raff if we include "SCOBLE" in uppercase letters in occasional blog posts? :D

Re: Not enough RSS subscribers, Drazen says

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:55:47 -0000

You make a really great point here, Robert. People are often mistaking quantity for quality and they fail to understand the power of influencers OR the issue of 'delayed power.'

It reminds me of a time when I was advising a client, trying to get them to focus more on the college market. They argued with me "But we make all our money from 30somethings, not 18 and 20somethings!

Obviously, they were missing two key points:

1) Get college kids to adopt a product or service now, and they're likely to use and recommend it at their workplaces when they graduate. Focus on a small liberal-arts college with a history of uber-powerful graduates and watch your influencing pay off in spades in 5 years. ("But 5 years, Adam... we're not on a 5 year plan!")

2) College kids are often both early adopters AND major influencers. I doubt Napster, for instance, initially spread like wildfire due to adults in the workplace. No, it was probably from college kids.

Re: Advertisers must hate “accidense”

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:54:44 -0000

For a great many advertisers, length-on-site isn't an important metric. For one of my biggest-spending AdWords client, for instance, the only thing of importance is how many sales or leads are obtained. Weirdly, we've found that the conversion of keywords is often seemingly random:
- "Buy Widget" yields great results.
- "Buy Widgets" yields awful results.
- "Buy a Widget" yields okay results

When it comes down to it, though, how often is site-time really relevant? Did he register? Did she purchase? Did he call the AdWords-specific phone number and chat with a rep? THIS is what matters 98% of the time, IMHO.

P.S. -- The "accidense" phenomena, however, is interesting! As a publisher, I love it. As an advertiser / advertiser-consultant, though, I think it's not a very sound policy to have so much clickable space.

Re: The next sensation? Fluxiom getting talked up

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:58:18 -0000

Could be something interesting, I suppose, but I found the video more annoying in its jerky MTV-ness than enlightening or engaging.

Re: Riya not recognized by Google

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:08:51 -0000

Chris,

I think one can reasonably debate about Microsoft's current and future capabilities in the Web world, but IMHO only a fool discounts the enormous earning and strategic value of what is (admittedly gaggingly) often referred to as Web 2.0. MS can either decide to play in the game or become a has-been.

The 1990's version of software will be MUCH less important in the scheme of things (businesswise and otherwise) in the next 10-15 years. Gmail, Flickr, Salesforce.com -- this is the future.

Re: MarkL loves 4 a.m. workers

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 16:57:34 -0000

Amen, Robert and Alfred!!! Alfred, I especially appreciated your comments here:

> I’ve been in the computer business for over 30 years
> and have concluded that there are only three reasons
> to work more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis.
> One – you are incompetent. Two – your management is
> incompetent. Three – you have no ability to socialize
> with others. I.e. No life.

I think the key here is also "on a regular basis." I have proudly put in some >40 hour weeks with several companies and don't regret that overtime a bit. But that intensified schedule was the *exception* rather than the rule.

Sadly, the "I work more hours than you do!" seems to still remain a (shockingly stupid) badge of honor for many geeks, especially American geeks. My European friends -- with lower obesity rates, longer lifespans, and so on in the aggregate -- think this syndrome is nuts, and rightly so.

In fact, in a recent Microsoft interview, one of the managers bragged about how he had not eaten lunch away from his desk more than two days in the last year due to the "stresses" and "fast pace" of his environment.

Frankly, I pity those who lack the communications skills or life passion to articulate their commitment to their careers in ways that don't involve "quantity."

More does not equal better. It's great, some would say even essential to feel passionate about one's work, but as the modified saying goes, how many folks would really like on their epitaph:

"He coded some really cool geek things"

rather than...

"He spent a lot of quality time with friends, family, and loved ones."

At least I know where I stand.

Re: The borg’s coffee sucks, new employee says

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:05:08 -0000

Hey Scoble,

I continue to like your blog stuff. If anything, the volume's a bit much for me to catch up with, but if I want to read about primarily all the technical specifics of different MS stuff, I'll read some MSDN blogs. I like the semi-randomness of your blog.

With that said, I think your dig about Google wasn't quite on the mark. Marissa and others have noted that Google won't get cluttered with banner ads.

With that said, I'm still concerned about the Google/AOL alliance for other reasons (many of which have been elucidated by other commentators and commenters), but I'll remain cautiously optimistic for the time being.

As for coffee... hmm... I didn't have any during my recent visit to the Evil Empire, but I noticed that y'all don't offer any free snacks. Maybe I've gotten spoiled from the consulting I've done for smaller companies, but shouldn't MS at least be offering free sugar and protein stuff to keep their coders fueled and happy? Surely the cost-benefit ratio would be favorable? :D

Re: Free wifi in airports?

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:30:28 -0000

Oakland airport should be added to that list. Used to charge $6/day via T-Mobile, but now it's free! :)

Wish other Bay Area airports were similarly thoughtful.

But anyway, I tell you... even though I live in SF (and just 10 minutes driving from SFO), that Oakland airport looks better and better nowadays; not only due to the now-free WiFi, but also fewer cancelled/delayed incoming and outgoing flights due to fog!

Re: Hey, Ray…

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:47:01 -0000

Yo, Scoble, what ever happened to self-imposed, disciplined moderation? If we all didn't have that, we'd cancel our DSL, wouldn't we? :P

I have a treo 600 now (a used Treo 650 on ebay was WAY more expensive, and a new one? Fuggedaboutit!), and I'm pretty happy with it, 'cept for the camera which I KNEW would be a piece o' crap anyway.

But I have to admit to being a bit envious of my friends with the windows mobile Audiovox thingies. Those seem really slick, and a lot less weight/bulk to carry around :)

Re: Free wifi in airports?

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:55:25 -0000

I was flying out of Oakland in mid-November via Southwest, and I'm pretty sure wifi was free then! But I can't see any mention of free wifi on the Oakland Airport page, so maybe I was imagining things. Bummer!

[In Seattle, they (via Cingular) wanted $9! Sure, it was for a 24 hour period, but as Vinnie said, how many folks really need more than an hour or so?!]

Re: Eric Rice goes virtual for New Years

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:21:28 -0000

Robert, may I respectfully urge you to unwire and un-Internet yourself for your sake and Maryam's on New Year's Eve? Drink some bubbly, make new friends, kiss your wife... and stay away from keyboard'y thingies for a whole evening.

Trust me, that's what I'll be doing. I'll be waltzing, eating, drinking (albeit Martinelli's -- I'm driving), swing dancing, schmoozing, and -- if I'm lucky -- kissing. And IMHO, that combination beats internet'ing any day of the week :)

Re: Alaska employees not posting smart?

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:28:43 -0000

Robert, I partly agree with you on this one.

As an agnostic, I find Alaska Airline's policy to be annoying and inconsiderate. Also hypocritical, given what we've learned about their lack of kindness towards employees.

Interestingly enough, though, I don't have quite as much of an issue with In'n'Out Burger printing bible verse numbers on their cups and napkins and such... primarily because they're known for using quality products, strictly adhering to safety and health policies, and treating their employees with dignity and respect.

With that said, I don't have a fundamental problem with public companies introducing religion into their stuff per-se... only when it's either blatantly obnoxious OR hypocritical or as a substitute for more needed or appropriate efforts.

Oh, and I completely agree with you about Southwest. It's gotten to where I'll actually book my flights out of Oakland (even though I live less than 10 miles from SFO!) just so I can fly Southwest, knowing that I'll get better treatment and far more on-time flights in both directions.

Re: The great “pull the laptop off of a table by its power cord” contest

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:34:49 -0000

Scoble, I've learned a very important lesson from this post; if you want lots of blog visits and comments, insult Mac or Mac users.

As usual, you're brilliant. Maybe not intentionally, but even so... :D

Re: How about a comment-based Memeorandum?

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:52:40 -0000

I respectfully disagree with that idea, Robert.

It's a self-perpetuating loop... a VERY common mistake in a lot of Web services. By highlighting what's popular, you simply entice more people to access that particular article or resource, thus making it more popular. That's why "Top 10" lists tend to be, at least over time, stultifyingly boring.

Re: MS Research releases Group Shot for photo groups

Adam Lasnik — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:59:14 -0000

Christopher, is there ANYTHING that Scoble writes that you don't reply to snarkily? No, I'm serious. Anything at all? Do you truly get pleasure from posting perpetually grumpily here? I'm just amazed...

Re: Blogging jumps the shark on at&t ads

Adam Lasnik — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:07:00 -0000

Hey Goebbels:

You weirdly assume that rebranding is all a numbers game. Who is AT&T trying to reach? Is it little Suzy going to school? The luddite parent? Out of town visitors?

Or maybe, just possibly, would it be better to reach key IT decisionmakers, early-adopter geeks, trendsetters, etc. Gee, you think maybe those sort of people pay attention to blogs? Just possibly?

Maybe if you spent a little less time foaming at the mouth, knee-jerking against Scoble, you'd actually take time to acknowledge some of the benefits of blogging as it pertains to PR (hint: there's a lot there, despite the hype).

Re: I’m pushing for more transparency, here’s why

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:35:58 -0000

Robert,

I'm sitting on a job offer from Microsoft, and it's just these sort of issues (not only a lack of transparency, but a lack of, well, civic cajones) that give me pause. Even on a shallow note, I don't feel like having to defend my employer to fellow geek friends; it's fine to joke about MS as "Evil" but I don't think the company's critics really need new fodder at this point :D

On the other hand, I do greatly admire the corporate openness which encourages blogs like yours and others at Channel9 and so on. It's a bit of an ironic juxtaposition!

Re: Small ideas, big companies

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:53:11 -0000

Those are some neat things, Robert. The bill thing in particular... could make meals at restaurants with large groups of cash-strapped friends a bit more convenient ("No, *I'll* pay by credit card" "Can I add my card, too?" "How about me?") :P

Re: Danah disagrees with me about MySpace

Adam Lasnik — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:02:00 -0000

> You don\’t use your telephone because of how pretty the receiver is, you use it to talk to the person on the other side.

I respectfully disagree with your example. At least in the realm of mobiles, I'm willing to bet that 7 out of 10 teens (if honest) would cite "fashionable looks" as a MAJOR factor in their cell phone purchases.

Re: Web 2007 is here … or somethin!

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:06:40 -0000

Web 3.0? Laggards. I'm already detailing Web 4.0 and it's absolutely amazing (hint: it includes Pamela Anderson and licking!)

Oh, and Robert... web40.info is available :P So tempting, eh?!

Re: One for Valleywag: Duncan Riley leaves B5 Media

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:25:14 -0000

Maybe I'm just in a snarky mood, but -- here's a crazy idea: How about we actually take a breather, and patiently wait more than a nanosecond FOR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES?

Enough with the "Where's the announcement?! Where's the valleywagging? How come IT'S NOT BEING BLOGGED TWO SECONDS AFTER IT HAPPENED?"

$#!( real time sometimes. I don't know Duncan, I've never met him personally, and frankly I didn't really keep up on his writing.

But he's a person. For crying out loud, don't he and Nick Douglas (okay, maybe not Nick) and other folks who just happen to write online deserve a bit of privacy, a few moments on their own to reflect upon and write -- or even not write -- about what's going on with them professionally and personally?

Robert, neither you nor I nor anyone else here is owed anything by these folks. There's no grand law which dictates transparency-uber-alles, in the blogosphere or otherwise. And frankly, I'm sick of this sense of bloggy entitlement. I'm sick of all the rantings and ravings about who breaks a story first, how many bloggers can me-too and pile on, and so on. It's no longer an echo chamber, it's a bunch of folks with video cameras and pitchforks and megaphones thrown into one of those carnival centrifugal force whirlie thingies... puking simultaneously.

IMHO, everyone needs to take a chill pill. Log off for a day or a week. Or at least boycott techmeme and tailrank and technorati and so on during that downtime not because they're inherently evil services, but because they pull us towards the now now now gimme gimme gimme tell me what's hot cool this very second herd mentality.

Hmm. Maybe instead of a "Buy Nothing" day, I'll initiate a "Blog Nothing" day. Everyone would read one of those crazy old things called a book (no, not a book about blogging! or tech!), or maybe even just talk to their (meatspace!) neighbor instead of speculating on Microyahoogle 2.0 or whatnot online.

All I know is that I've grown weary of the increasingly hyper-invasive mode of blogging lately. Let people be. If I wanted gossip and rumormongering and crap like that, I'd live in Hollywood or be part of the entertainment industry.

Blegh.

Re: Just bought car of the year

Adam Lasnik — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:36:26 -0000

Not a Prius? :o Just bought one and love it! Super mileage, very comfortable, lots of fun. And navigation (which I'm finding is SUPER useful!)

Re: Ze Frank in San Francisco…

Adam Lasnik — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:35:08 -0000

Sorry, cFares is not ready for prime time. Tried it a week ago; found it to be not only buggy and slow, but... it completely hung on any multi-city itinerary I threw at it (even SFO-SYD / MEL-SFO).

I think it's a super idea for a company (offering wholesaler flight rates direct to consumers), and I'll definitely keep an eye on this firm... but for now, it's way, way too early to hype 'em.

Re: We need better statistics…

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 13 May 2007 18:33:09 -0000

Personally, I think stats are way overrated. Don't get me wrong... I love Google Analytics (well, the new version; I was using StatCounter previously for accessible daily stats-viewing). But I think that our entire industry worries way too much about public accountability.

Are pageviews important? For advertisers, yes. But why is the public pre-disclosure necessary? If it's pageview-based, why not this:

1) Website posts their own metrics (they're likely to know better than 3rd party services anyway!).
2) Impressed advertiser goes, wow, 2 million pageviews a week! Great, we'll pay you $x for 2 million pageviews/week. If pageviews are reduced by more than 100,000, then we can get out of our contract with no penalties AND you'll owe us $y/CPM for the shortage.

Otherwise, aren't RESULTS more important? What's the quality of the mail service like? How many sales is the company making? How many new subscribers are they getting to their for-pay newsletter?

With ajax'd pages, the pageview and raw traffic numbers are, IMHO, simply a stupid metric in many cases. We need to get off an obsession with false quantifications ("Gimme numbers, any numbers!!!!!!1") and start caring more about the quality of the user experience, the power of the brand, the conversions, and so on.

Sorry, Hitwise. Sorry Compete. I just don't find your public stats to be all that useful in the overall scheme of things... even if they were 100% "accurate."

Re: Social networks as “friend” Nazi (design flaws in Facebook, Jaiku, Twitter)

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:31:14 -0000

Hmm... I tried to trackback ya, but it may have gotten speaten (eaten as spam).

Anyway, I just wanted to give you an overall thumbs up on your observations regarding friends (vs. connections, etc.) and also respectfully note that I wrote a similar rant a few weeks back:
"All “friends” aren’t created equal! (why we need better relationship marking in social networks)."

Re: Business plan obfuscation: Twitter style

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:36:59 -0000

I still don't get Twitter. I tried it, had friends on it, stopped using it (as did most of my friends) and don't miss it a bit.

And -- at risk of re-upping the Facebook hype -- can someone, anyone explain to me what's to keep Facebook from emulating twitter 100%? It seems the following steps would suffice:

1) Letting you "follow" someone or be a "fan" of them without requesting reciprocation.
2) Er... I think that's about it. Let's see, Facebook member updates his status, it goes to whomever he's permissioned.

Mobile access? Already there. IM access? Couldn't be that hard to add.

Er, any other barriers to entry that I'm missing?

Re: Business plan obfuscation: Twitter style

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:56:13 -0000

> Twitter has 400,000 users and is gaining at a quite
> consistent rate. Anyone who watches
> http://www.twittervision.com for more than 20 seconds
> can see that there are people all over the world who
> use it and who aren’t using other services.

GAH! But Robert, this really doesn't tell us anything.

1) How does Twitter define a user? Am I still a "user" even though I opened an account, twittered lightly for a few weeks, then quit?
2) What's Twitter's 30-day-active graph look like?
3) What's Twitter's churn rate? How many people join and then quit [x] days later?

And, seriously, Twitter has nothing new, nothing disruptive, nothing creating any sort of barrier to entry. Userbase is *not* a barrier to entry.

How much would it take for people to leave Twitter for the next shiny thing? Practically zero.

Compare that to Facebook, where people have tons of mail, wall-messages, apps-data, etc.

Or Ebay, where people have earned a trust # and feedback over time. That's not immediately replicable. Also, on ebay, buyers go where sellers are and visa versa... there's a three-way relationship there not mirrored in any way by Twitter.

* * *

There's a lot Twitter could have done to be useful AND create lockin at the same time. For instance: enabling people to set up priority-groups, group-types, etc. That would have helped target and filter messaging AND would have required an initial investment in time from members that they'd likely be loathe to repeat on another service.

But right now, leaving Twitter and going somewhere else is a 30 second deal.

And lastly, what does Twitter have that others don't have, that others can't easily get? Server space, bandwidth, computing power, SMS-gateways? Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo... they could all probably imitate Twitter in the blink of an eye.

400,000 peeps? Come on, Scoble, that is laughably small. How many people are on MySpace? How many frequent users/buyers does Amazon.com have? For that matter, how many DSL members does Earthlink have?

400,000 is not even a blip. The only reason people talk about Twitter is because a handful of popular bloggers and other geeks have adopted it as their new toy.

It's cute, I grant you that. And for some people, undoubtedly fun.

But sheesh, put this stuff in perspective, will ya? :)

Re: The you-don’t-need-more-friends lobby

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:43:13 -0000

Sorry, Robert, I have to disagree with you here.

If my understanding is correct, you add anyone as a friend who has asked you to be their "friend" on Facebook. Meaning... you're willing to add someone whom you've never met, never chatted with, probably never even exchanged an e-mail with.

If everyone did that on Facebook, the social graph would become meaningless. Everyone would be "friends" with everyone, and thus browsing through friends-of-friends or doing other stuff through (theoretically) trusted network links would end up completely foobar'd.

So, frankly, I'm glad that Facebook has a 5K friend limit. Perhaps even 2K would be more reasonable. As others have noted, I'd rather Facebook spend their time and resources on more interesting, more broadly useful projects and expansions.

Re: Why Google News has no noise

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:48:36 -0000

I'm voting for the News over the Noise.

And I'm also asking: what did knowing about the Chinese earthquake minutes before other folks... contribute to your life? Seriously. Did it help you in a great way? Was it highly useful? Greatly entertaining? Extra meaningful?

I think folks (including myself sometimes) should step back and ask: how much does what you call "noise" contribute to the overall, long-term quality of our lives? And how much does it keep us mildly entertained and too busy to follow through on meaningful, long-term products?

You may know about the next great Web 2.0 company even days before others, but is playing with the Latest Great Thing for a few extra days going to change your life?

Perspective. Perspective.

Re: Why Google News has no noise

Adam Lasnik — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:05:21 -0000

> Scoble, you are utterly worthless.

Yo, Michael C... I find that I disagree with Scoble more often than I agree with him, but dude, what's with the *personal* hate? Given that you clearly have no interest in, nay, actually can't stand his commentary, why read it? The Internet's a grand, big, and flexible place. Find some corners you like and perhaps save on blood pressure medication :-)

Re: Has/How/Why tech blogging has failed you

Adam Lasnik — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0000

Wow! Clearly I've come a bit late to this post; everyone has pretty darn well said what I wanted to say.

But nonetheless, I'll add this:
Robert, I have gained a lot of additional respect for you with this post. I've not always agreed with your take on blogging and online communications (in fact, I've pretty strongly disagreed with you at times), but I found myself nodding my head in agreement again and again with you in this long but spot-on entry.

Thanks for the having the selflessness and thoughtfulness to post this, self-criticisms and all. Your points are worth reflecting upon by ALL of us who blog, all of us who read blogs, all of us who reward both the good and bad in the blogosphere with our time, our comments, and our respect.

Re: Why O’Reilly’s Blogger’s Code of Conduct Must Die

Adam Lasnik — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:08:19 -0000

If it ever gets to the point where my blog actually needs a "code" of anything other than HTML and CSS, my policy will be much simpler: "Don't be a jerk."

Re: I Canceled My Basecamp Account Today

Adam Lasnik — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:02:20 -0000

I used to regularly read the 37Signals blog, but got too frustrated with it and the people behind it. Smart folks, and I've appreciated their focus on simplicity and focusing on the user. But -- similar to what you noted -- the emphasis on the blog became more of exclusivity and absolutism ("we're right, everyone else is just stupid"), and I found it condescending and annoying.

IMHO, the folks behind 37Signals succumbed to something that's seemingly all-too-common today... the assumption that, well, because OUR company succeeded, then our way of doing things is the right way AND everyone can replicate our success by learning our methods.

Hogwash. There are shockingly many outstandingly brilliant people and wondrous companies that flamed out due to bad luck or bad timing as well as stunningly moronic people and disgusting companies that succeeded due to sheer luck and good timing. Just too many folks overall assuming correlations and causations where none logically exist.

I prefer the more humble approach: Here's what we did, here's what our company did... take from it what you will. Perhaps it'd work great for you, perhaps it's a horrible option for your firm... you know best.