Apparently, the whole of Facebook is only a sideshow scrape together enough information to build up a search engine and a user-oriented AdService [1] capable of challenging Google. At least that's what it appears that the article was devoted to the Wired 7.
say in Facebook Inc. ' Why should you settle for the articles on the failure of the Chrysler recommended by the algorithms of Google News, when you can read the ones recommended by friends? (see Wired No 7, p. 113.)
Why me, dear Zuckerberg, I have no friends among the world's financial experts and professors of economics at Harvard: if my contacts damn highly of the crisis of Chrysler (and do well). On the other hand I can not even think to remedy this fact by adding the above-mentioned experts among the friends of world finance, because your friend on Facebook in the form of a bilateral contract, and if they bump their highly of me and my friends (and do well) - not to mention the fact that I would not do because I want to give even a vague meaning to the word "friendship." To follow relevant personalities, and the content they produce, there are several types of instruments, such as Twitter, or RSS, or FriendFeed if only you had not cannibalized after having copied all the features most stupid [2] and the substance. The difference between them and Facebook, Zuckerberg dear, is that their profiles are open to the outside protected by default and those are a tiny minority. For the profiles of others you enter to follow, is not required to be reciprocated friendship: this means that I can have fast and direct access to the information I need without bothering anyone. I am interested in the work of Neil Gaiman? well, follow the profile of Neil Gaiman on Twitter and read what it does. I am interested in photos of Demi Moore's ass? well, follow the profile of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and look at the link to tinypic.
In short, this is in part already disadvantaged. Facebook preclude access to any of the information is not interest of your personal contacts, and exclusively theirs. Do not you decide.
Let's see how the engine should ideally Facebook Search: I say you are looking for information about a movie I want to go see, say, Inglorious Basterds. Enter the name in the field of search engine and look for him in all the profiles of my contacts about that movie. What is it? "Nice, I liked that" "cool!" "Tonight we look at Inglourious Basterds:)". If I wanted to go to the polls was enough for me to check rottentomatoes.com (especially since the polls I do little or nothing, in fact I did not like the movie ). But the same would happen with any other film quite well known not to be the preserve of radical chic pseudointellettualoidi: what we expect to find? may appear in the "movies" of some user or other comments like "cool ABSURD I robottoni OF TRANSFORMERS." We have
instead of the movies that try to be more than niche probably will not find anything. Do not we all have friends who share the same tastes in music or cinema, on the other hand there are no constraints such friendship. How many notes
dedicated to critical analysis of a film you have ever seen? There. It is not a criticism, it is an observation, however if I place movie reviews do not see why I expect that others do, Sticazzi. The fact is that a sample of 120 to 200 people (your friends) is not quite enough to cover an adequate spectrum of film - unless one another and do not be Mereghetti Ghezzi, of course - or any interesting topic in general.
The only way to overcome this thing is to allow access - at least in research - to feed others, but this is called invasion of privacy, and Facebook users have demonstrated over and over again to hate (they have also reacted very badly the first attempt to publish guidelines, see the Wired article). I believe that virtually no one wants that your profile is accessible to all, from your parents who are curious to know why you joined the group "The hog god - Pets " or why their daughter to the test "as you in bed? " was "indomitable a slut." Well, not really.
Finally, add a Facebook Search is not very useful, if not directly for your contacts, in which case there's a little 'for added comfort, but nothing revolutionary. A little 'as the Blue-ray is just a DVD +.
What is not said of the strategy behind the startup is that Facebook is extremely precarious. All the future income of the company [3] depend only on the genuineness of this immense mass of information that we make them available to users. Let me explain.
An advertising service companies to sell a certain amount of appearances in the banner. If you are not organized, rain down at random on users, most of which will not be affected and react
ignoring the offer. The idea of \u200b\u200btargeted advertising instead of advertising the product is only from those users who are interested or can be - greatly increasing the effectiveness of advertising. Example: an emerging band released their first album and want to publicize it. The band's sound is very close to that of Built to Spill, so the banners are directed to users who are fans of Built to Spill: in this way are more likely to break / make money. It is therefore essential to know the preferences of retail users to organize the campaign.
data that is available at the moment are mainly genuine Facebook because - partly luck, partly because it is set [4] - accounts that reflect quite faithfully the lives of people outside the internet: the display name is true, friendships / knowledge are roughly the real thing, people become fans of artists who value and products that really truly loves, etc.. This is what made Facebook different from all previous social networks: we chose a possibly fanciful nickname, an avatar that did not have to represent our person, it was a bit 'the fuck you wanted. Information for publicity: next to zero.
In practice, all their hopes to build a targeted advertising, which is able to attract the big names in internet for now do not trust - Treasure Island of advertising that is - are based on the authenticity of that data, only and only on that.
Now, assume that one day, Google and Facebook are fighting the last - eh hypothetically - that battle, given the size of companies, will be no holds barred. We travel a bit 'fancy. What would prevent Google to play hard spending a bit 'of money to create a few million profiles-bot with a network of friends plausible? The reCAPTCHA can be inserted a bit 'at a time by real people (100 people entering, say, 2000 reCAPTCHA per day in a month they would have turned 6 million profiles) and once activated would act on their own, cultivating the friendship networks and expressing preferences and tastes fictitious that Facebook would not be able to distinguish from the real ones except with a considerable computational effort, computational effort that can not currently afford and that is precisely what he seeks to avoid. At this point, although the advertising would still be directed to the relevant users, it would be impossible to quantify them accurately and thus pricing the advertising campaign: no one would buy a wagon banner then, if the users are really interested only 2%.
Therefore, it is sufficient that data and pollute the whole strategy of Facebook goes to hell, the revenues expected are not forthcoming, the stock quotes in time was abandoned and the startup dies. At that point, Facebook is vulnerable to any new social network that provides the same functionality and even better graphics (not so difficult task), things like that.
If Google wants to play fair, will build a social network that is capable of incorporating all social networks - including Facebook - and offers more functionality unknown before. Oops, there already is Google Wave. He just needs to spread (by the way, if anyone has an invitation to read and do not know who to give it, here I am: Sior. Giggles [the bullet markers at] gmail. Com).
[Click the image to enlarge] Finally, all this rigmarole is to make sense of one thing: my desire to get out of Facebook.
The problem is not directly that Facebook is too widespread, the problem is that I am come into contact with a type of humanity I try to avoid as much as possible.
Why have not I go? I wish you could find a way to prevent hold my data and I have not found a decent replacement (Google is still betatesting Wave: see above). And then I'm terribly lazy.
Postscript:
There is much talk these days about the group, "Berlusconi Kill" (now has changed name), whether or not it is lawful to make such groups, though there may be criminal liability if there is censorship and blah blah blah. My opinion is that the groups are the virtual equivalent of facebook chat bar, if the banned groups also prohibited those at this point. But then, who cares.
[1] is what Google is trying to do with tons of math for years, with the Facebook project hope to reduce or even avoid it, I guess.
[2] Where do you think is the "like"? and the ability to comment on items posted to the dashboard? (See http://thenextweb.com/2009/01/12/facebook-getting-friendfeed-like-likes-the-similarities-continue/ ). Facebook has bought FriendFeed August 10, 2009.
[3] These revenues will be very substantial to support a huge demand of bandwidth - which will continue to grow with members - and a demand for storage that will not end until the social network will be built-up area: 850 million photos and video to 8 million month are felt. So much so that Facebook had announced that it planned to close in surplus before 2010, even though he has done it the same - I do not know how.
[4] not forget that Facebook, it tells you the name, was born originally as an online version of the Directory of universities and schools. It was natural that the first true members include your name and surname, and has been - for Zuckerberg & Associates - a fortune that users have taken the following example.
0 comments:
Post a Comment